Returns amateur radio log cache status: contact and unique callsign counts, date range, bands, modes, source files, and import timestamps. Call first for a data overview.
ログキャッシュの状態を返す。
交信数、ユニークコールサイン数、日付範囲、使われているバンドとモード、 取り込み元ファイルと取り込み日時。まず最初にこれを呼ぶと全体像がつかめる。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by naming exactly what information will be returned and positioning the tool as an initial overview call. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or response format, but given the annotation coverage this is a minor gap.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, the middle enumerates return contents, and the final sentence provides usage guidance. Every line earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a no-parameter, read-only information tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description is complete enough: it lists the returned fields so an agent knows what data to expect and explains that calling it first gives an overview. No essential invocation detail is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema means there is nothing for the description to compensate for, and the description does not need to explain parameter syntax or formats.
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 and resource: it returns the state of the log cache, and it enumerates the exact contents (QSO count, unique callsigns, date range, bands/modes, import source files and timestamps). This clearly distinguishes it as a metadata/overview tool rather than a search or import tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling qso_stats, which may also provide counts and statistics, so sibling differentiation is implicit at best.
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 final sentence explicitly says to call this tool first to grasp the overall picture, which is clear context for when to use it. It does not, however, state when not to use it or name alternative tools for more detailed queries, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.