Perform a cone search of the Transient Name Server to find transient objects near given RA/Dec coordinates, using the live API or cached public archive.
Transient Name Server cone search (live API if bot credentials are set, rate-limited to 10/min; otherwise the cached daily public archive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ra | Yes | ||
| dec | Yes | ||
| radius_arcsec | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes meaningfully beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing the two execution modes (live bot-authenticated API vs. cached daily public archive) and a hard rate limit of 10/min. The only missing piece is how stale the cached archive can be, which is only hinted at by 'daily'.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that identifies the source and the query type immediately, with the operational caveats in a parenthetical. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the live/cache fallback plus rate limit cover the operational side. But for a coordinate-based tool with three undocumented parameters, the absence of coordinate units/frame guidance is a real gap an agent could stumble on.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not: units for ra/dec (degrees vs. hours), coordinate frame, and the meaning of radius_arcsec beyond the parameter name are all left undefined. 'Cone search' gives only the loosest hint about how the three parameters combine.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource pair: 'Transient Name Server cone search', which tells an agent this is a positional/radius query against TNS. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling tns_object (single-object lookup), though it never says so explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'cone search' — an agent must infer that this is the tool for 'what transients are near these coordinates' rather than for object-name lookups or nearby-object queries (ztf_objects_near, whats_here). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.