Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-nec2-antenna

mcp-nec2-antenna

by RFingAdam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

nec2_create_inverted_v

Create an inverted-V dipole antenna that requires only one support. Specify design frequency, apex height, and droop angle for simulation.

Instructions

Create an inverted-V dipole antenna (requires only one support).

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "frequency_mhz": "<frequency_mhz>"
    },
    "name": "nec2_create_inverted_v"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesAntenna name
frequency_mhzYesDesign frequency in MHz
apex_height_mNoApex height in meters (default: 15)
droop_angle_degNoDroop angle in degrees (default: 45)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 only states the creation action and support requirement, without disclosing side effects, state changes, or other behavioral traits.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description is fairly complete for a creation tool. It could mention that the created antenna is added to a model list, but it's implied by the context of sibling tools.

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% (all parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool creates an inverted-V dipole antenna and highlights its unique advantage of requiring only one support. This distinguishes it from siblings like nec2_create_dipole.

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 implies use when only one support is available, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this vs. alternatives like a standard dipole or other antenna types.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools