AetherLink SDR MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

spectrum_analyze

Analyze the radio spectrum with FFT and detect signals at the current frequency; configure window, FFT size, and averaging to identify active transmissions.

Instructions

Perform spectrum analysis (FFT, signal detection) at the current frequency

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "spectrum_analyze"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`window`	No	Window function	blackman-harris
`fft_size`	No	FFT size (power of 2)
`averaging`	No	Enable spectrum averaging

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`signals`	No
`peak_power_db`	No
`center_freq_hz`	No
`noise_floor_db`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether an SDR must be connected, whether the call blocks while capturing samples, how long a capture takes, or what 'signal detection' actually returns — all critical for a hardware-facing analysis call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it spends its only clause on restating scope rather than on the routing information an agent most needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. What remains missing is the prerequisite state (connected device, tuned frequency) and disambiguation from spectrum_scan.

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 window, fft_size and averaging are already documented in the schema, including the enum and the power-of-2 constraint. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3.

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 ('Perform spectrum analysis') and the analysis types (FFT, signal detection) plus scope ('at the current frequency'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling spectrum_scan, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage hint is the implicit 'current frequency' dependency, which suggests a frequency must already be set. There is no statement of when to prefer this over spectrum_scan, no prerequisite about connecting a device, and no exclusions.

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