Reads the active input fields in Turbo HAMLOG to get the current callsign, report, and frequency, enabling quick checks of past contacts without altering the log.
起動中の Turbo HAMLOG の入力ウィンドウの内容を読む (読み取りのみ)。
今まさに入力中のコールサイン・レポート・周波数などが取れる。 交信中に「この局とは前にいつ交信したか」を調べる起点に使う。 HAMLOG 側は一切変更しない。
Windows かつ HAMLOG (Ver5.27c 以降) が起動している必要がある。 HAMLOG と本サーバは同じユーザー・同じ権限レベルで動かすこと。
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful environment context: HAMLOG itself is never modified, and the server must run as the same user at the same privilege level as HAMLOG. It does not describe what happens when HAMLOG is not running or how stale the window data might be.
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?
Front-loads what is read and the read-only guarantee, then the use case, then prerequisites — a sensible ordering. Slightly more lines than strictly necessary, but every sentence carries distinct information.
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?
Covers what is returned at a conceptual level (callsign, report, frequency) and all prerequisites, which is adequate given there is no output schema and no parameters. The absence of any failure-mode or staleness note is the only gap.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — reads the contents of the Turbo HAMLOG input window — and explicitly scopes it as read-only (読み取りのみ). The 'running input window' focus distinguishes it from data-oriented siblings like search_qso and qso_stats, though it never names an alternative.
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?
Gives a concrete use case: as a starting point during a QSO to look up when you last worked a station. It also states clear preconditions (Windows, HAMLOG 5.27c+, same user/permission level as the server). It stops short of naming the sibling that performs the follow-up lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.