Retrieve a satellite's TLE and predict its next topocentric pass for a given location and minimum elevation, returning the TLE source and epoch age.
Fetch one TLE and predict the next topocentric pass; returns source and epoch age.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | No | ||
| longitude | No | ||
| catalog_id | No | ||
| horizon_hours | No | ||
| minimum_elevation_deg | 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?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that results include the data source and epoch age (i.e., TLE staleness matters), which is real behavioral value. It says nothing about network fetching from Celestrak, failure modes when no pass occurs within the horizon, or whether fetching and prediction always happen together.
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 sentence with three distinct payloads: the fetch, the prediction, and the returned metadata. No filler, action front-loaded.
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?
Output schema covers the return shape, but for a compound tool with five undescribed parameters and no annotations, the description omits essential context: defaults, whether a pass prediction is always computed, and the no-pass case. An agent cannot confidently parameterize it from this text alone.
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?
All five parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description never names them. 'Topocentric' hints that observer coordinates drive the prediction, but latitude/longitude units, the meaning of horizon_hours, minimum_elevation_deg thresholds, and the hidden defaults (Norfolk coordinates, catalog 25544 = ISS) are undocumented.
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?
Specific verb+resource: fetch a TLE (orbital elements) and compute the next topocentric pass, plus a note that source and epoch age are returned. This is clearly distinct from the space-weather and NOTAM siblings. It stops short of 5 only because TLE/topocentric jargon is unexplained for a non-expert caller.
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 indication of when to prefer this over querying other sources, no prerequisites, and no note on what happens when no pass exists in the horizon. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'pass'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.