Astronomer MCP Server

get_star_system

Retrieve a star system's profile by ID, including cosmic structure, thematic astrophysical tags, and celestial bodies to support astrophysics analysis.

Instructions

Retrieve full profile of a star system including cosmic structure, thematic astrophysical tags, and 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_star_system"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Star System ID
`include_embedding`	No	Include raw 1024-dim vector embedding
`include_celestial_bodies`	No	Include celestial bodies belonging to this star system

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. "Retrieve" implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses that the profile includes related celestial bodies and tags, but it says nothing about error behavior, permissions, payload implications of embedding, or defaults.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed content type adds useful scope information for the agent.

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 retrieve-by-ID tool with complete parameter schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what the full profile contains, though it could be richer about the read-only nature and relationship to sibling getters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions celestial bodies and thematic tags, loosely aligning with include_celestial_bodies, but adds no syntax, default, or trade-off detail 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Retrieve full profile of a star system." It also enumerates the profile contents, which helps distinguish it from narrower sibling getters such as get_celestial_body. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied: retrieve one star system by ID when full profile detail is needed. There is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus list_star_systems, get_celestial_body, or get_cosmic_structure, and no exclusions are stated.

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

Deploy Server