Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
loosephoto

space-finder-mcp

by loosephoto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

fireball_reports

Retrieve JPL CNEOS fireball observation records to identify recent atmospheric entries, filtered by date range, impact energy, and reported location.

Instructions

JPL CNEOS の火球（大気圏突入）観測記録を返す（認証不要・APIキー不要）。

例:「最近の火球」「今月の大きな火球」「火球はどこで観測された?」「隕石は落ちた?」

Args: days: 何日前までをさかのぼるか（1〜1825、既定 30）。UTC の日付で絞り込みます。 min_impact_energy_kt: 衝突エネルギーの下限（kt TNT 換算。例 0.5）。省略時は全件。 limit: 表示する最大件数（1〜50、既定 10）。新しい順。 require_location: True なら緯度経度が報告されている記録だけを返します。

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo
limitNo
require_locationNo
min_impact_energy_ktNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv0.41.4
    • removedInput schema / properties / days / title
      Removed value: -"Days"
    • removedInput schema / properties / limit / title
      Removed value: -"Limit"
    • removedInput schema / properties / min_impact_energy_kt / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • removedInput schema / properties / min_impact_energy_kt / default
      Removed value: -null
    • removedInput schema / properties / min_impact_energy_kt / title
      Removed value: -"Min Impact Energy Kt"
    • addedInput schema / properties / min_impact_energy_kt / type
      Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / require_location / title
      Removed value: -"Require Location"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"fireball_reportsArguments"
  2. Addedv0.39.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full load, and it does disclose useful behaviour: no authentication required, filtering by UTC calendar date, newest-first ordering, and that require_location restricts results to records with reported coordinates. It leaves out response shape and rate-limit/volume expectations, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

The purpose and the no-auth guarantee are front-loaded, and the Args block is a compact parameter-by-parameter listing. The four example queries are useful for routing but push slightly past what is strictly needed, so it falls just short of full marks.

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 four-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers every input thoroughly. It does not hint at what a record contains (energy, altitude, coordinates, date), which would have helped an agent judge whether the returned data is sufficient to answer a follow-up question.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description has to document all four parameters, and it does: days is bounded to 1–1825 with a default of 30 and a UTC-date meaning, min_impact_energy_kt is expressed in kt TNT with an example value, limit is bounded to 1–50 with newest-first ordering, and require_location's boolean meaning is spelled out. This is meaningfully more than the bare schema types.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: return JPL CNEOS fireball (atmospheric impact) observation records. The parenthetical gloss on 火球 and the four sample phrasings make clear it is distinct from the nearby NEO and impact-risk tools, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The example queries (「最近の火球」「今月の大きな火球」「隕石は落ちた?」) give a clear sense of the user intents this tool serves, and the description notes that no auth or API key is needed. It never explicitly names an alternative tool or a case where another sibling such as impact_risk or neo_close_approach should be called instead, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools