Skip to main content
Glama

eso_seeing

Retrieve real-time ESO Paranal/VLT atmospheric and seeing data, including seeing, precipitable water vapor, temperature, humidity, and wind, for planning astronomical observations.

Instructions

ESO パラナル天文台(チリ, VLT)のリアルタイム大気・シーイング観測データを返す。

例:「パラナル天文台のシーイング」「VLTの観測コンディション」「赤外線観測の水蒸気」
認証不要。シーイング(arcsec)・可降水量(PWV)・気温・湿度・風速を返す。

Args:
    hours: 過去何時間分を取得するか(既定 12、最大 48)。
    fields: カンマ区切りの観測フィールド。省略で主要フィールド。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hoursNo
fieldsNodimm_paranal-fwhm,lhatpro_paranal-pwv0,meteo_paranal-temp1,meteo_paranal-rhum1,meteo_paranal-wind_speed1,meteo_paranal-press_inst

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.25.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose notable behavior: no authentication required, real-time observational data, and the specific fields returned (seeing arcsec, PWV, temp, humidity, wind). It omits data cadence, rate limits, and error behavior, but the auth and return-value context is genuinely useful.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded purpose followed by example queries, auth/return summary, and an Args block — well structured and free of padding. Slightly longer than strictly needed but every section carries information.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, invocation examples, authentication, return fields, and both parameter constraints. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only field enumeration and freshness/cadence details are missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: hours is described as lookback window with default 12 and max 48, and fields as a comma-separated list where omission means the main fields. It stops short of enumerating valid field names beyond the schema's default string.

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 concrete verb and resource: returns real-time atmospheric/seeing observation data from ESO Paranal (Chile, VLT). The observatory/instrument scoping makes it distinguishable from the generic sibling astronomy_weather, though it never explicitly names that sibling.

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 three example queries (Paranal seeing, VLT conditions, IR water vapor) imply the user intents this tool serves, giving implied usage rather than explicit when/when-not guidance. With 40+ siblings including astronomy_weather, it should say which queries belong to those tools instead.

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