Astronomer MCP Server

upsert_cosmic_structures_batch

Batch insert or update cosmic structures, matching existing records case-insensitively by name to prevent duplicates.

Instructions

Batch insert or update cosmic structures matching case-insensitively on name.

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": {
      "cosmic_structures": "<cosmic_structures>"
    },
    "name": "upsert_cosmic_structures_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cosmic_structures`	Yes	Array of cosmic structures to upsert

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 usefully discloses the identity rule — matching is case-insensitive on name — which is the most important behavioral fact for an upsert, but it is silent on conflict behavior, partial-failure semantics, atomicity, required permissions, and what is returned.

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 no filler; the operation, resource, and matching rule all appear immediately.

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?

The nested array structure is simple and fully documented in the schema, and no output schema exists to explain. However, for a batch mutation with zero annotations, an agent still lacks information about partial failures and upsert conflict resolution before calling it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining that the name field is the case-insensitive match key for insert-vs-update decisions. That adds real semantic meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 pair (insert or update) plus the resource (cosmic structures) and the batch scope, so an agent knows this is an upsert-by-array operation rather than a single-record create/update. It does not name the single-record or sibling batch tools, so differentiation is left mostly to the word 'batch', but the operation itself 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 'insert or update' phrasing implies when this tool is appropriate (existing-or-new records in bulk) versus a pure create, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternative is named. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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

Deploy Server