Find FCC radio licence status changes since a date, filtered by frn, callsign, or service. Receive JSON records with usi, callsign, old_status, new_status, observed_date, and source_file. The since period is at most 31 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frn | No | ||
| since | Yes | ||
| service | No | ||
| callsign | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the JSON record fields and the maximum 31-day window. It does not mention what happens if the since period exceeds 31 days, whether results are ordered or paginated, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations, leaving real gaps.
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?
Three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: action and filters, return shape, and a key constraint. No filler or repetition.
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?
The description covers the core purpose, all parameter roles, the output record fields, and a critical constraint. It is slightly incomplete because it does not specify behavior for invalid or excessive date ranges, pagination, or how multiple filters interact, but it is largely sufficient for a read-only change-history tool.
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%, so the description must compensate. It names all relevant parameters and adds meaning: 'since' is a date with a 31-day cap, and frn, callsign, and service are filters. It does not detail filter combination behavior or value formats, but the schema supplies structural constraints.
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 a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('FCC radio licence status changes'), and the filtering dimensions ('frn, callsign, or service'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fcc_snapshot or fcc_search by focusing on historical status changes.
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 clearly implies this tool is for change-history queries starting from a date, and the 31-day cap gives a concrete usage boundary. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like fcc_snapshot or fcc_search, nor does it mention exclusions.
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.