Retrieve detailed information about a specific solar system body by its ID, such as Earth, Mars, Jupiter, or the Moon, to answer astronomy queries and support workflows.
Get detailed info about a specific solar system body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Body ID (e.g. 'terre' for Earth, 'mars', 'jupiter', 'lune' for Moon). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but never states that it is non-mutating, needs no auth, or is safe to call repeatedly, and it gives no hint about the shape or scope of the returned details.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the key operation is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably too sparse to be maximally useful.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description is close to the minimum viable. It does not address return contents, edge cases (invalid id), or source/coverage of the body data.
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 100% and the id parameter already documents accepted values with examples ('terre', 'mars', 'lune'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that baseline.
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?
The description names a specific verb (Get) and resource (detailed info about a specific solar system body), clearly distinct from the sibling solarsystem_bodies list tool. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names that sibling to reinforce the contrast.
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: the singular 'a specific solar system body' plus a required id parameter suggests lookup-by-ID versus browsing the list. There is no explicit statement of when to use this over solarsystem_bodies or any prerequisite/context guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.