AetherLink SDR MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

signal_generator

Generate and transmit CW, tone, noise, or sweep test signals on HackRF hardware for up to 60 seconds while blocking protected aviation, public safety, cellular, and GNSS bands.

Instructions

Generate and transmit a test signal (HackRF only, max 60 s). Transmission on aviation, public safety, cellular, GNSS and other protected bands is refused.

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": {
      "frequency": "<frequency>",
      "signal_type": "<signal_type>"
    },
    "name": "signal_generator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`duration`	No	Duration in seconds (max 60)
`frequency`	Yes	Transmit frequency in Hz
`tone_freq`	No	Tone frequency for 'tone' type (Hz)
`signal_type`	Yes	Type of signal to generate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two valuable traits: a hard hardware requirement and a safety policy that protected-band transmissions are refused. However, it never says how a refusal surfaces (error vs. silent no-op), whether the call blocks for the transmission duration, or what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the capability statement comes first and the constraint/refusal caveat follows immediately. Nothing redundant beyond the minor 60 s duplication with the schema.

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?

For an RF-emitting mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two biggest risks (hardware eligibility and protected-band refusal) but leaves out refusal mechanics, prerequisite device state, and post-call outcome. Adequate but with clear gaps for a transmit operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the signal_type enum are already documented. The description only restates the 60 s maximum that the schema already encodes in duration's maximum and description, adding no new meaning.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate and transmit a test signal') plus a hardware scoping qualifier (HackRF only), which cleanly separates it from the read-only sdr_* and spectrum_* siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with other transmit-adjacent tools (hackrf_set_tx_gain), but no sibling shares this transmit purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description supplies operating constraints (HackRF only, 60 s cap, protected bands refused) that imply when the tool is legal/appropriate, but never states when to use it versus alternatives or what prerequisites must be satisfied first. An agent must infer that a prior connect/tuning step is needed.

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