Retrieves near-Earth asteroids approaching Earth today using a NASA API key, helping users monitor daily asteroid close approaches.
今日地球に接近する小惑星(NEO)を返す。NASA_API_KEY が必要。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.41.4Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"_nasa_neo_todayArguments"v0.25.2Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "_nasa_neo_todayOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: a NASA_API_KEY is required. It says nothing about the return shape, ordering, or what happens when no NEOs approach today, and gives no rate-limit or failure context.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose first and the API-key prerequisite second. Nothing is wasted and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
For a zero-param read tool the description covers the essentials, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what fields come back or whether the result is empty. The overlap with neo_close_approach is also left unaddressed.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of NASA_API_KEY is a configuration note rather than a parameter concern.
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 (返す/returns) and a clearly scoped resource: near-Earth objects approaching Earth today. The scope word 今日 makes the temporal boundary explicit. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling neo_close_approach, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.
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 word 今日 implies a today-only window, which gives implicit usage context, but the description never says when to prefer neo_close_approach or impact_risk instead. Usage is inferable rather than stated, so it lands at minimum-viable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.