Skip to main content
Glama
loosephoto

space-finder-mcp

by loosephoto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_space_images

Search NASA's library for planet, satellite, or mission images and return JSON metadata with inline chat previews and openable links.

Instructions

惑星・人工衛星・宇宙ミッションの画像を NASA Image & Video Library から検索し表示する。

LLM向けに structuredContent へJSON（title/date/nasa_id/image_url など）を返し、
content にはチャット表示用のサマリ+インライン画像を返す。

例: 「火星の画像を見せて」「ハッブルの写真」「アポロの画像」

Args:
    query: 検索語（mars, jupiter, hubble, apollo など英語が確実）。
    limit: 返す画像件数（既定 3、最大 10）。
    show_inline: 画像をチャットにインライン表示するか（既定 True）。
    inline_max: チャットに埋め込む画像の枚数（既定 1、最大 5）。
        転送量を抑えるため既定は先頭1枚のみ。全件のURLは
        structuredContent.results[].image_url に入る。

content の各項目には、メディア本体より前に「🖼️ [画像を開く: タイトル](URL)」
「🎧 [音声を開く: タイトル](URL)」「🎬 [動画を再生: タイトル](URL)」というアイコン付き
リンクを出します（インライン表示を描画できない CLI/Android 系ハーネスでも開けるように）。
回答時はこのリンクをそのまま提示してください。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
inline_maxNo
show_inlineNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.25.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / inline_max
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 1,
+  "title": "Inline Max",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the dual return channels (structuredContent JSON fields vs. content summary with inline images), the bandwidth-driven inline default, the max values not present in the schema, and the exact icon-prefixed link format so it renders even on CLI/Android harnesses.

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 purpose, then return-shape, then examples, then args — a logical order. It is slightly verbose with some restatement of the inline/link behavior, but every section carries information an agent needs to call and present results correctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is complete: it explains fetch behavior, both return surfaces, per-field output content, and the presentation contract for downstream harnesses. Nothing needed to invoke or relay results is missing.

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% and the schema holds only defaults, yet the description documents all four parameters including constraints absent from the schema (limit max 10, inline_max max 5) and the practical hint that English queries are more reliable. This is meaningfully more than the structured fields provide.

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 (検索し表示する) and resource (惑星・人工衛星・宇宙ミッションの画像) sourced from the NASA Image & Video Library, and the example queries make the target media unambiguous. It is readily distinguishable from siblings search_space_audio and search_space_videos.

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?

Provides concrete example queries (火星の画像, ハッブルの写真, アポロの画像) that show when to reach for this tool, and implicitly positions it as the image counterpart to the audio/video siblings. It never names an alternative explicitly or states exclusions, 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

Other Tools