Astronomer MCP Server

get_cluster_group

Retrieves details for a specific archetype cluster group, including its member star systems or celestial bodies when requested.

Instructions

Retrieve details of a specific archetype cluster group with all member star systems or celestial bodies.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_cluster_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Cluster Group ID
`include_members`	No	Include member star systems or celestial bodies

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important return behaviour that member star systems or celestial bodies are included in the response, which is genuine added context. It omits that the operation is read-only, what happens when the ID does not exist, and how large member payloads are handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description says enough: it identifies the entity and states that members are returned. Only the absence of not-found behaviour and a clearer notion of what 'details' comprises keeps it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'all member star systems or celestial bodies' loosely maps to include_members but adds no default, format, or cost implications beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve details') and a specific resource ('a specific archetype cluster group'), and the word 'specific' implicitly contrasts with the listing operation. It does not name list_cluster_groups or any other sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the required 'id' and the singular 'a specific' suggest this is the lookup-after-listing tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion against list_cluster_groups or get_cluster_report/snapshot, and no prerequisite or error guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server