Look up which US/FCC or ITU Region 2 band allocation a frequency falls in and list nearby well-known channels/services, without radio access.
Band-plan lookup (US/FCC, ITU Region 2): which allocation a frequency falls in and which well-known channels/services are nearby. No radio access needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frequency | Yes | ||
| window_khz | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 disclose two meaningful traits: it is a pure lookup requiring no radio hardware, and its answers are limited to US/FCC and ITU Region 2 allocations. It says nothing about behavior on out-of-band or malformed input, or about lookup latency/coverage limits.
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?
Two compact sentences, no filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded before the caveat. Every clause adds 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?
No output schema exists, and the description does partially characterize the return ('which allocation a frequency falls in and which well-known channels/services are nearby'), plus it fixes the regulatory scope. However, with 0% parameter documentation the description leaves the required 'frequency' format and the role of 'window_khz' entirely unaddressed, which is the main completeness 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%: 'frequency' is a bare string with no stated unit or format (MHz? Hz? '146.520'?), and 'window_khz' has only a default of 50 with no explanation of what window it governs. The description never compensates for either gap, so an agent must guess the input format for the required parameter.
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?
Uses a specific verb+resource ('Band-plan lookup... which allocation a frequency falls in') and scopes it to a defined regulatory regime (US/FCC, ITU Region 2). The added clause 'No radio access needed' cleanly separates it from hardware-touching siblings like sdr_tune, band_sweep, and spectrum_snapshot.
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?
'No radio access needed' implies the main condition that selects this tool over the sdr_* and sweep tools (offline/regulatory question vs. live capture), but it never states that explicitly or names an alternative. No guidance on when this is the wrong choice versus band_sweep or spectrum_snapshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.