Skip to main content
Glama

russia_launches

Fetches scheduled Roscosmos rocket launches, including Soyuz, Progress, and Luna missions, with optional status and limit filters for tracking Russian spaceflight activity.

Instructions

ロシア(Roscosmos)のロケット打ち上げ予定を返す(ソユーズ・プロトン・アンガラ等)。

Launch Library 2 を「search=Roscosmos」で絞り込み、ソユーズ(Soyuz)による
Progress(補給)・Soyuz MS(有人)・Luna 等の打ち上げを取得する。
ロシア直のオープンAPIは存在しないため(Roscosmos REST は404)、グローバル集約API経由。
認証不要。content に表示用サマリ、structuredContent に JSON を返す。

Args:
    limit: 返す件数(既定 8、最大 15)。
    status: 状態で絞り込み(例 "Go for Launch")。省略で全状態。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
statusNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.25.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (Launch Library 2 with search=Roscosmos), that authentication is not required, and the return format (content summary plus structuredContent JSON). It lacks rate-limit or error-handling details, but covers key behavioral traits well.

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-loads the purpose, then provides source/auth/output context, then a compact Args section. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the justification for using the aggregator API is slightly verbose and could be tightened.

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 simple read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, authentication, return format, and parameter behavior. Minor gaps like error handling or pagination are unlikely to impede correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters: limit (default 8, maximum 15) and status (filter by state, example "Go for Launch", omitted returns all states). This adds meaningful constraints and semantics beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (Russian/Roscosmos rocket launch schedule), naming example vehicles (Soyuz, Proton, Angara) and the data source. An agent can immediately tell this is the Russia-focused launch tool, distinct from global or other national launch siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the country scope: use this for Russian/Roscosmos launches. However, it never explicitly states when to use it versus siblings like upcoming_launches or china_launches, nor does it provide exclusions. The note about no direct Russian API explains the source choice but is not usage guidance.

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