Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
telescopius-mcp

telescopius-mcp

by scarter4work
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

observing_list

Read-only

Retrieve targets from a saved list and calculate their visibility for a chosen night, location, and timezone.

Instructions

One observing list's targets with visibility for the given night.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>"
    },
    "name": "observing_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNo
lonNo
dateNo
list_idYes
timezoneNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe, externally-informed read. The description adds that visibility is computed for the given night, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about defaults (e.g., location/date null behavior), rate limits, or output shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the resource, though the fragmentary phrasing sacrifices clarity for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With five parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and only two annotations, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain required list_id, location/date defaults, or what the returned target list includes, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

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 for five undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'the given night' (hinting at date/timezone) and 'visibility' (hinting at lat/lon), but never explains list_id, lat, lon, date, timezone, their formats, or defaults. This is a severe gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource ('observing list's targets') and a partial verb-like scope ('with visibility for the given night'), but it's a noun phrase rather than a clear action verb. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like tonight_highlights or my_observing_lists, leaving ambiguity about whether it lists lists or their contents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus my_observing_lists, tonight_highlights, or sky_times. It implies retrieving a list's targets for a given night, but doesn't state prerequisites like needing a list_id or how to obtain one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools