Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.qso-graph/eme-mcp

io.github.qso-graph/eme-mcp

by qso-graph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Eme Moon Window

eme_moon_window
Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate moon visibility for one or two Maidenhead locators and return mutual windows when the moon is above both horizons for EME contacts.

Instructions

Where the moon is from a grid square, and when both ends of a schedule can see it.

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": {
      "locator": "<locator>"
    },
    "name": "eme_moon_window"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hoursNoHow far ahead to look. Default 24, at most 336 (14 days).
locatorYesMaidenhead locator, e.g. DN13 or DN13la.
step_minutesNoSampling interval. Default 30, at least 1.
other_locatorNoA second station's locator. Given one, the answer also carries the mutual window — the rows where the moon is above the horizon at both ends, which is the only time a contact is possible.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not say what "where" means (azimuth/elevation, distance, illumination), what time base is used, or that results come as sampled rows over a horizon. It is consistent with the annotations but carries little extra behavioral weight.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. However, the phrasing is elliptical ("Where the moon is") and leaves the core output ambiguous, so brevity comes at the cost of precision.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With four parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description does not need to explain returns. Still, for a computational tool whose value depends on time base and coordinate meaning, an agent is left inferring too much; one clause about azimuth/elevation and UTC would make it complete.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented upstream, including the 336-hour cap, the 30-minute default step, and what other_locator produces. The description only echoes the mutual-window concept already spelled out in the other_locator field description, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 names a specific resource and computation: moon position for a Maidenhead grid square, plus the mutual-visibility window between two stations. That is more than a restatement of the name, and it distinguishes the tool thematically from eme_path_loss and eme_degradation. It falls short of 5 because it never states an explicit verb (compute/return) or names a sibling it is not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. EME/schedule planning context), and no exclusions or pointers to the sibling tools. The only routing signal an agent gets is implicit from the topic of moon visibility.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools