Finds AAVSO variable stars within a radius of given sky coordinates, returning names, variability types, ranges, and periods for quick checks.
AAVSO VSX variable stars within radius: name, variability type, range, period.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are radius-bounded and lists returned fields, but says nothing about coordinate frame, the small default radius (10 arcsec), or result limits for dense fields.
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?
A single front-loaded line with no filler; the catalog and returned fields come first. It is terse to the point of leaving out units, but every word present earns its place.
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 explained, and the read-only annotations cover safety. However, for a coordinate-based search tool the missing unit/frame semantics are a real completeness gap that the description never fills.
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%: ra, dec and radius_arcsec carry no titles beyond bare names and no units or frame. The description mentions 'within radius' but does not clarify degrees vs. sexagesimal for ra/dec or that radius is in arcseconds with a 10-unit default, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 resource and operation: a cone search returning AAVSO VSX variable stars within a radius, plus the fields returned. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like simbad and gaia by naming the VSX catalog and 'variable stars', though the acronym is never expanded and the verb is implied rather than stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as simbad or gaia for a generic cone search. The agent must infer from the catalog name alone that this is the variable-star-specific option.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.