space-finder-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

reverse_lookup

Find the earliest or first-recorded space objects by category and country in Wikidata—for example, the first satellite launched by Japan.

Instructions

逆引き歴史Q&A — カテゴリ+国で絞り込んだ最初/記録の宇宙オブジェクトを Wikidata から探す。

例: 「米国で最初に打ち上げた宇宙望遠鏡は?」→ category="宇宙望遠鏡", country="United States" 例: 「日本初の人工衛星は?」→ category="人工衛星", country="Japan"

Args: category: 探す対象のカテゴリ（宇宙望遠鏡/space probe/satellite/astronaut など）。 launch_date: 打ち上げ日(P619)で並べる場合は True。False にすると対象を列挙する。 country: 国名（例 "United States", "Japan", "India"）。Wikidata 上で Q-id に自動解決する。 country_qid: 国の Q-id を直接指定する場合（例 "Q30"=米国, "Q17"=日本）。country より優先。 limit: 返す件数（既定 5）。 order: "asc"=古い順(最初のもの), "desc"=新しい順。 language: ラベル表示言語（ja/en/zh など）。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "reverse_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`order`	No	asc
`country`	No
`category`	Yes
`language`	No	ja
`country_qid`	No
`launch_date`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed14 schema fields changedv0.41.4Oct 23, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / category / title
```
Removed value: -"Category"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / country / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / country / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- removedInput schema / properties / country / title
```
Removed value: -"Country"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / country / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / country_qid / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / country_qid / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- removedInput schema / properties / country_qid / title
```
Removed value: -"Country Qid"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / country_qid / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / language / title
```
Removed value: -"Language"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / launch_date / title
```
Removed value: -"Launch Date"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / limit / title
```
Removed value: -"Limit"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / order / title
```
Removed value: -"Order"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"reverse_lookupArguments"
```

Changed1 schema field changedv0.25.2Sep 12, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "reverse_lookupOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the backing source (Wikidata) and the dual behavior of launch_date (True = sort by launch date P619, False = merely enumerate targets), which is genuine beyond-schema information. However it never states that this is a read-only query, doesn't mention that results depend on Wikidata coverage/P619 availability, and says nothing about what an empty or unresolvable-country result looks like.

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 one-line purpose, then two examples, then a structured Args block — every section earns its place and the param explanations add semantics rather than restating names. Slightly verbose in total, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, examples, data source, and every parameter's semantics and precedence. The remaining gap is return-shape/ordering detail beyond `limit` and unstated failure modes for country resolution, but an agent can call it correctly from what is given.

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 must compensate, and it does: all 7 parameters are documented with meaning, accepted value shapes, and defaults (limit 既定 5, order asc/desc semantics as 古い順/新しい順, language ja/en/zh). It also states a precedence rule the schema cannot express: country_qid は country より優先, with Q-id examples (Q30, Q17).

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 specific verb (逆引きで探す) plus resource (最初/記録の宇宙オブジェクト) plus two filter dimensions (カテゴリ+国) and the data source (Wikidata). This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like object_lookup or catalog_search by its 'first/record-breaking, country-filtered' framing, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Two concrete worked examples (「米国で最初に打ち上げた宇宙望遠鏡は?」→ category/country pair) tell an agent exactly what question shape this tool answers. No when-not guidance is given — e.g. it doesn't say to prefer object_lookup for a specific named object — so it falls short of 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