SkyFi MCP Server

estimate_tasking_cost

Estimate the cost of a satellite tasking order before feasibility checks. Provide area and sensor type to receive an upfront price preview.

Instructions

Estimate the cost for a new satellite capture tasking order. Use this to give the user a cost preview before checking feasibility or generating a quote.

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": {
      "aoi": "<aoi>",
      "sensor_type": "<sensor_type>"
    },
    "name": "estimate_tasking_cost"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`aoi`	Yes	GeoJSON Polygon for the tasking area
`sensor_type`	Yes	Sensor type for tasking
`resolution_tier`	No	Desired resolution tier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'cost preview' implies non-committal estimation, which adds some context. However, it does not describe return format, potential side effects, or any limitations, leaving important operational details undisclosed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the main purpose ('Estimate the cost...') and then gives usage timing, making it easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description omits what the estimated cost output looks like or any additional behavioral details. While the schema thoroughly documents parameters, the description could clarify the return format or optionality for a more complete understanding.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (aoi, sensor_type, resolution_tier), providing clear semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Estimate') and resource ('new satellite capture tasking order'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like estimate_archive_price and quote_tasking_order by focusing on the cost preview stage.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'before checking feasibility or generating a quote'. It provides clear context but does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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