get_moon_phaseReturns tonight's moon phase for Sedona, AZ — illumination percent, phase name, and a 7-day lunar calendar. Perfect for stargazing and outdoor planning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date YYYY-MM-DD (default today) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| today | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| location | Yes | ||
| next_7_days | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "location": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "next_7_days": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "today": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "date": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "emoji": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "illumination_pct": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "moon_age_days": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "phase": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "date",
+ "phase",
+ "emoji",
+ "illumination_pct",
+ "moon_age_days"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "location",
+ "today",
+ "next_7_days",
+ "source"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds useful context: fixed location, optional date parameter, and return content (7-day calendar). No contradictions.
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 concise sentences with essential information front-loaded. Every word adds value, no fluff.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema (not shown) exists, and the description covers input, fixed location, and return data. No gaps.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'date' with a clear description. The description adds 'tonight's' but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the verb 'returns', the specific resource 'moon phase', location 'Sedona, AZ', and the data included: illumination percent, phase name, and 7-day calendar. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like weather or stargazing conditions.
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 description provides a context hint 'Perfect for stargazing and outdoor planning' but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, more specific usage guidance would be beneficial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct across categories (radio, local info, spiritual, listener management), but there is notable overlap: get_emergency_alerts and get_nws_alerts both provide alerts, and get_or_create_listener overlaps with register_listener. Also, get_chakra_frequencies, get_chakra_guide, and get_solfeggio are very similar. While descriptions help differentiate, agents may still struggle to select the right tool.
All tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_weather, submit_song_request, log_listener_history). The verbs are predictable (get, search, submit, log, register, update) and there are no deviations like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 45 tools, the set is overgrown for a radio station server. Many tools are hyper-specific (e.g., separate tools for chakra frequencies, guide, and solfeggio; moon phase, sun times, and stargazing conditions). Consolidating similar functions would reduce cognitive load and improve coherence.
The tool set covers a broad range: radio operations, listener management, local news/weather, outdoor guides, spiritual content, etc. However, there are notable gaps: no tool to fetch full news articles (only headlines), no way to manage show schedules, and no donation or station info tools. Also, listener profile management is split across multiple tools, which feels incomplete.