Galaxy Cluster Catalogs MCP Server

load_clusters_skill

Loads the full instructions for a galaxy-cluster skill by name and applies them, enabling catalog plotting, counts, crossmatching, and mass-calibration workflows.

Instructions

Load the full instructions of one of this server's skills and follow them.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "load_clusters_skill"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Skill name from the list-skills tool.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`files`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`metadata`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that the returned content is instructions to be executed ("and follow them"), and an output schema exists so return format need not be explained. However, it says nothing about invalid-name behavior, side effects, or whether loading is idempotent/read-only.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and its follow-up obligation are stated immediately with nothing redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description gives enough to select and invoke it correctly. The only meaningful gap is the absence of error or prerequisite guidance (e.g., what happens with an unrecognized skill name).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter already documents that the name must come from list-skills. The description adds no format, casing, or matching details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ("Load") and resource ("the full instructions of one of this server's skills"), which is clearly distinct from the sibling list_clusters_skills (listing vs. loading a single skill's content). It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the parameter description says the name comes "from the list-skills tool," which hints that list_clusters_skills should be called first. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus other siblings, nor what to do if the name is unknown.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.