Query Spansh star systems with flexible filters like population ranges to find Elite Dangerous locations for exploration, colonisation, or station searches.
Flexible Spansh systems search, e.g. {"population": {"value": [0,0]}}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| filters | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only search but does not mention pagination, result limits, authentication needs, or any other operational behavior; the single filter example is parameter detail rather than behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification for a search tool whose parameters are otherwise undocumented.
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 explained. Still, with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is missing page behavior, filter semantics, usage guidance, and any indication of how the results are structured or limited.
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%, so the description must compensate. The example filter object adds meaningful syntax for the filters parameter, but the page parameter is not mentioned at all and the full filter schema remains undocumented.
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?
The description states a clear verb+resource: a flexible search over Spansh systems. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling search tools such as edsm_sphere_systems or spansh_find_nearby_stations, so it falls 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites. The word 'Flexible' implies general applicability but offers no decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.