Retrieve upcoming rocket launches with an optional limit (default 5, max 15). Returns a summary and structured JSON for display.
今後予定されているロケット打ち上げの一覧を返す。
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 5、最大 15）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.25.2Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "upcoming_launchesOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states no authentication required and describes the return format (content summary, structuredContent JSON), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, error behavior, or data recency.
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?
Very concise: one sentence for purpose, one for auth/return format, and a short args section. Front-loaded with core functionality, no wasted words.
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?
Given one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, auth need, and parameter constraints. However, it lacks guidance on usage context relative to siblings and doesn't mention pagination or data freshness, leaving minor gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'limit' parameter with its purpose (number of results), default (5), and maximum (15), which fully clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's bare type and default.
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/return) and resource (今後予定されているロケット打ち上げ/upcoming rocket launches). Clearly scoped to future launches, distinguishing it from siblings like china_launches, russia_launches which are agency-specific and likely past-oriented.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention how it differs from china_launches, russia_launches, or other launch-related siblings, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.