Determine solar azimuth and altitude for any site and time by providing latitude, longitude, and an ISO-8601 datetime. Returns sun position angles for analysis.
Compute solar azimuth + altitude for a location/time. Pure calculation, no doc edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the core no-side-effect profile. The description reinforces this with 'Pure calculation, no doc edits,' adding mild context about the tool being a standalone computation, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as timezone/coordinate assumptions or document-open requirements.
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 with no filler, and the core function is front-loaded. 'Pure calculation, no doc edits' is a compact safety clarification that earns its place.
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?
The annotations and output schema cover safety and return shape, and the description states the basic function. However, for a tool with several solar-analysis siblings, the absence of usage routing and parameter-semantics guidance leaves the definition slightly incomplete.
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 effectively 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only vaguely says 'for a location/time.' The schema itself provides property names, defaults, and ranges, but the description does not clarify semantics like whether datetime_iso is local or UTC, or what timezone_offset_h means for this calculation.
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 opens with 'Compute solar azimuth + altitude for a location/time,' giving a specific verb, resource, and the key inputs. 'Pure calculation, no doc edits' distinguishes it from the many document-mutating Rhino siblings, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.
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?
No alternatives or when-to-use conditions are mentioned. 'Pure calculation, no doc edits' only rules out document-mutation tasks; it does not help an agent choose between this and related solar tools such as rhino_sun_path, rhino_direct_irradiance, or rhino_shadow_project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.