Find star systems within a given radius of a named system or X/Y/Z coordinates using EDSM data.
Systems within radius_ly of a system name or x/y/z coords (EDSM).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| z | No | ||
| radius_ly | No | ||
| system_name | 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the '(EDSM)' data source: no rate limits, no indication of what happens when both a name and coordinates are supplied, and no note on result caps. A safe read-only call is implied but never stated.
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 compact sentence with zero filler and the core scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves it close to under-specified rather than optimally structured.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with five optional parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the definition omits essential calling context: how to pick a center, what the default radius means, and any limits on results.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description partially compensates by naming radius_ly and indicating that either a system name or x/y/z coordinates can define the center. It does not explain the default radius of 15, units, or the mutual exclusivity/precedence of system_name vs coordinates, leaving real ambiguity.
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 resource (systems) and a specific scope (within radius_ly of a point), enough to distinguish it from edsm_system_info (one system) and spansh_find_nearby_stations (stations). It does not explicitly name a competing sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many alternatives (edsm_system_info, spansh_query_systems, spansh_find_nearby_stations). Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'within radius_ly'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.