Retrieve full contact history for a specific callsign, including first and last contact dates, bands, modes, names, QTH, and per-contact details for real-time lookup during operation.
特定の局との交信履歴をまとめて返す。
初回交信日、最終交信日、交信したバンドとモード、記録されている名前と QTH、 および各交信の明細。交信中に相手の履歴を確認する用途を想定している。
Args: callsign: 相手局のコールサイン (完全一致)。 limit: 返す明細の上限。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| callsign | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the exact-match semantics of the lookup and the full shape of the returned data, including that per-contact detail is capped by limit.
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 output contents and use case are front-loaded before the Args block, and every sentence carries information. It is slightly verbose in listing returned fields, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned data; with annotations covering safety, the remaining needs are met. A brief note on ordering or how limit interacts with the summary fields would make it fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does: callsign is described as an exact-match lookup (a meaningful constraint), and limit as the cap on returned detail rows. Both params get semantics the bare schema does not provide.
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 ('returns the contact history with a specific station') and enumerates the concrete fields returned (first/last contact date, bands, modes, name, QTH, per-contact detail), so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not name sibling tools like search_qso or qso_stats to differentiate scope, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
It gives a clear use scenario ('intended for confirming the other party's history during a QSO'), which tells an agent when to reach for it. It stops short of naming the alternative tools or stating when NOT to use it, so it is clear context rather than explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.