Search Spansh for Elite Dangerous celestial bodies by system or coordinates and filter results for targets like Earth-like worlds near a reference point.
Exploration search over Spansh bodies (e.g. Earth-likes near a reference).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| z | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| filters | No | ||
| system_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this hits a live Spansh API, whether results are paginated (implied only by the page/size params), rate limits, or ordering. Only 'search' weakly implies a read-only operation.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, and the resource is front-loaded. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance: the example is the only concrete anchor and the sentence is too thin for a 7-parameter tool.
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, but for a 7-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free tool the description is far too sparse. Key gaps include the meaning of the coordinate triple, the shape of the filters object, and pagination semantics.
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% across 7 parameters, and the description compensates only with a vague 'near a reference' hinting at the x/y/z coordinates. Nothing explains the coordinate system/units, what keys the free-form 'filters' object accepts, or how system_name relates to the coordinates.
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 verb and resource ('Exploration search over Spansh bodies') and gives one concrete example ('Earth-likes near a reference'), so the general intent is graspable. However, it never says what a 'body' search actually filters on or how it differs from siblings such as spansh_search_stations or spansh_query_systems, leaving the purpose only partially pinned down.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to pick spansh_search_bodies, spansh_search_stations, or edsm_sphere_systems for a proximity query; only the 'Earth-likes' example implies a use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.