Find catalogued SNRs, TeV sources, H II regions, planetary nebulae, and pulsars around a sky position or named object within a chosen radius.
Find catalogued SNRs, TeV sources, H II regions, PNe and pulsars around a position or named object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b | No | ||
| l | No | ||
| ra | No | ||
| dec | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| catalogs | No | ||
| radius_arcmin | No |
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 full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether this is a read-only catalog lookup, what happens with an empty result, how results are ordered or truncated, or that the default search radius is 30 arcmin capped at 600 — meaningful omissions for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved partly by omitting information the tool actually needs.
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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about coordinate conventions, units, the radius default/cap, and the catalog enum values. Far too thin for a tool of this parameter complexity.
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 8 parameters, and the cryptic short names 'l' and 'b' are never explained as Galactic longitude/latitude versus the 'ra'/'dec' equatorial pair. The description's 'position or named object' gestures at the name/coordinate split but adds no units, defaults, or catalog semantics.
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?
Specific verb ('Find') plus an enumerated set of resources (SNRs, TeV sources, H II regions, PNe, pulsars) and a scoping concept ('around a position or named object'). It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as search_nebulae or query_vizier, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The phrase 'around a position or named object' hints at two invocation modes but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of how it relates to search_nebulae or query_vizier, and no advice on choosing catalogs or radius.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.