solar_xrayRetrieve current GOES X-ray flux and solar flare classification (A, B, C, M, X) to assess HF radio blackout risk from M- and X-class events.
Get GOES X-ray flux and solar flare status.
Shows the current X-ray classification (A, B, C, M, X) from GOES satellite data. M and X class flares can cause HF radio blackouts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain interpretation (the A/B/C/M/X scale and the operational consequence of M/X events) that annotations cannot convey, but it says nothing about data freshness, latency, or whether readings are near-real-time versus cached.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the interpretive context. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema.
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?
With no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema documenting return values, the description only needs to establish purpose and interpret the classification. It does both; the sole gap is freshness/latency of the GOES reading, which matters for a 'current status' tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste space restating an empty schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: retrieve GOES X-ray flux and current flare classification. The scope is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like solar_alerts or solar_conditions, which an agent must infer from the names.
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 by the content ('current' status, classification scale). There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over solar_alerts or solar_forecast, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The mention that M/X flares cause HF radio blackouts hints at when the data matters but does not route the agent between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.