Retrieve near-Earth asteroids approaching Earth today using NASA data. Requires a NASA_API_KEY to fetch current asteroid approach records.
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.
v0.25.2Output 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it usefully discloses that a NASA_API_KEY credential is required, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about rate limits, caching, failure modes, or the shape of the returned data, leaving significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentences with zero waste: the first states what is returned, the second states the prerequisite. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it returns, the temporal window, and the credential requirement. It could say slightly more about the return content, but it is adequate to call the tool correctly.
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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure, so no parameter explanation is needed or missing.
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 asteroids (NEO) approaching Earth today'), which is unambiguous and distinct from nearby siblings like solar_system_now or sky_map_with_satellites. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the scope is narrow enough that confusion is unlikely.
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 'today' implies the temporal scope, but there is no guidance on when to pick this over related tools (e.g. sky_map_with_satellites, planetary_orbiter_track) or any stated exclusions. Usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.