Astronomer MCP Server

update_cosmic_structure

Update a cosmic structure's name or description by ID to keep astrophysics model records accurate.

Instructions

Update an existing cosmic structure's name or description.

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": "update_cosmic_structure"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Cosmic Structure ID
`name`	No	Updated cosmic structure name
`description`	No	Updated description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not state whether this is a partial update (either field optional) or a full replacement, what happens when a field is omitted, whether the updated object is returned, or what occurs when the id does not exist.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, and mutable fields appear in the first few words. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

All three parameters are schema-documented and there is no output schema to explain, so the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. For a mutation tool with no annotations, however, it omits partial-update semantics and error/return behavior that an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 each of the three parameters is already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description's phrase 'name or description' reinforces that only the name and description fields are mutable, but adds no format, length, or mutability nuance 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 and resource ('Update an existing cosmic structure') plus the exact mutable fields (name or description), which distinguishes it from create/delete/get siblings by name convention. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

The word 'existing' implies the record must already exist and that 'id' is required, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_cosmic_structure-style batch/upsert siblings, nor any stated prerequisites or failure conditions.

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

Deploy Server