Get the International Space Station's current position and a Google Maps URL to view it in real time.
ISS（国際宇宙ステーション）の現在位置を返し、Googleマップで表示できるURLを生成する。
例:「ISSは今どこ?」「国際宇宙ステーションの現在位置」
content に表示用サマリ＋Googleマップリンク、structuredContent に JSON（緯度経度）を返す。
Returns:
CallToolResult: ISS の現在位置情報。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.25.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the response shape (content = summary + Google Maps link, structuredContent = JSON lat/long), which compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about data source, freshness/latency of a 'now' reading, or caching — meaningful gaps for a positional tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Purpose is front-loaded, followed by example queries and return-format notes in a logical order. The trailing 'Returns: CallToolResult: ISS の現在位置情報' largely restates the opening sentence, a minor redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description steps in to explain the return payload (display summary + map link in content, JSON coordinates in structuredContent), which is the main thing an agent needs. It is adequate for a zero-param read tool, though source/freshness details remain unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: returns the ISS's current position and generates a Google Maps URL. The resource (ISS) is inherently distinct from siblings like tiangong_now or sat_ground_track, though the description never names an alternative to route against. Clear but without explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The two example utterances ('Where is the ISS now?') imply when the tool applies, giving an agent intent-matching cues. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the closest alternative (tiangong_now for the Chinese station, satellite_status for general tracking), so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.