Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
meteor-mcp

meteor-mcp

by qso-graph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Meteor Window

meteor_window
Read-onlyIdempotent

Judge whether two grid squares can work by meteor scatter and get hour-by-hour verdicts (no, marginal, good, best) from path length, radiant elevation and radiant-to-path angle.

Instructions

When two stations can work each other by meteor scatter, and why.

Give both grid squares. The answer covers the path itself (is it even a meteor-scatter distance), which shower is in play, and then hour by hour whether the geometry can reflect — reported as no / marginal / good / best with the reason that decided it.

Three things decide it, and radiant elevation is only one: the path length, the radiant's elevation at the path midpoint (where the reflection happens, not at either station), and the angle between the radiant and the path. That last one is the one usually left out and the one that makes a reflection geometrically possible at all — a trail reflects only where it is tangent to the ellipsoid with both stations at its foci, so a radiant broadside to the path works and one up- or down-path does not, at the very same elevation.

Your own end can be left out when the host supplies it from the operator's station profile — ADIF's MY_GRIDSQUARE, or MY_LAT and MY_LON when the exact position is known. Those fields describe the transmitting station, not where the operator is sitting, which is what makes a remote operation come out right: the reflection geometry depends on where the antenna is.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
whenNoUTC start, ISO 8601. Omitted, now.
hoursNoHow far ahead to look. Default 12, at most 14 days.
my_latNoYour latitude, if known exactly — preferred over a grid square, which is a rectangle this would otherwise have to take the centre of.
my_lonNoYour longitude.
showerNoShower code, IAU number or name. Omitted, the one nearest its published peak is used and named in the answer.
my_gridNoYour locator. Omitted, it must come from your station profile.
their_latNoThe other station's latitude, if known exactly.
their_lonNoThe other station's longitude.
their_gridNoThe other station's Maidenhead locator, e.g. "EM12".
step_minutesNoSampling interval. Default 30.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description still adds substantial behavior: the output is graded no/marginal/good/best with the deciding reason, and the three determining factors (path length, radiant elevation at the path midpoint, radiant-to-path angle) are spelled out. It also discloses the implicit profile fallback via MY_GRIDSQUARE or MY_LAT/MY_LON and clarifies that those fields describe the transmitting station, not the operator — a nuance with real behavioral consequences for remote setups.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then the answer shape, then the deciding factors, then parameter fallbacks — a sensible order. The tangent-to-the-ellipsoid exposition is the longest stretch and leans educational, but it justifies why the tool exists and why the angle term matters, so it mostly earns its place. Formatting with bold and em-dashes aids scanning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 10-parameter, zero-required tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is computed, what the response grades mean, which inputs may be omitted and where they come from, and the physical model behind the verdict. Return values are correctly left to the output schema rather than restated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the per-parameter defaults and constraints and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond it by explaining the preference for exact coordinates over a grid square, the rationale for midpoint geometry, and the transmitting-station semantics of the profile-supplied fields. It does not address step_minutes or hours caps in the prose, so it is not a full 5.

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 opening line states a specific, unambiguous purpose: determining whether and when a two-station meteor-scatter path can reflect, hour by hour. It is clearly distinct from a general shower-listing tool because it is explicitly about a path between two grid squares. It stops short of a 5 because it never names a sibling tool or a flat verb+resource phrase, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the sibling catalog.

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 implied rather than stated: the reader learns the tool answers path viability, which suggests using it for planning a sked, but there is no explicit "use this when" / "do not use this for shower peak lookups, use X instead." The only concrete guidance is operational — that one's own end may be omitted when the host fills it from the station profile — which is parameter guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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