Check if a sky position or named object falls within the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (1420 MHz, 408 MHz, HI), and optionally list available CGPS data products at CADC.
Is a position or named object inside the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (1420 MHz, 408 MHz, HI)? Optionally list the actual CGPS data products at CADC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b | No | ||
| l | No | ||
| ra | No | ||
| dec | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| query_archive | No | Also list CGPS products at CADC (network). |
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 burden. It implies a read-only coverage check and notes that query_archive triggers a CADC network listing, but it does not state the return type, coordinate assumptions, or whether any authentication or rate limits apply.
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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core coverage predicate and followed by the optional archive behavior. No filler.
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?
With no output schema and almost no schema parameter descriptions, the definition leaves key calling details unresolved: return shape, coordinate systems, and parameter exclusivity. It covers the high-level purpose but not enough for reliable invocation.
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 only 17%, with only query_archive documented. The description maps 'position' to the coordinate parameters and 'named object' to name, but it does not define b/l versus ra/dec, units, or that at least one selector is needed.
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?
Uses a clear predicate ('Is ... inside') and names the specific survey, frequencies, and optional archive listing. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling survey tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
Explains the core use case, a coverage test, and marks archive listing as optional. However, it gives no when-not guidance, no alternatives, and does not explain which parameter combination an agent should choose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.