Save identified or mystery radio signals to a logbook with confidence levels (confirmed, likely, guess). Record frequency, label, and notes for later analysis.
Save an identified (or mystery) signal to the logbook. confidence: confirmed/likely/guess.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| files | No | ||
| label | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| frequency | Yes | ||
| confidence | No | ||
| bandwidth_hz | No | ||
| identification | 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 for what is clearly a write/persistence operation. It never states whether entries append, overwrite, deduplicate, require permissions, or what the save returns. The only behavioral content is the confidence vocabulary (confirmed/likely/guess).
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action leads and the confidence vocabulary follows. The second fragment is telegraphic but still earns its place as enum-like guidance.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It establishes intent but leaves parameter formats, write semantics, and result behavior unspecified.
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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it clarifies only 'confidence' (confirmed/likely/guess) — a genuinely useful addition since the schema defines it as a bare string with no enum. The other seven parameters, including required 'frequency' and 'label' and ambiguous ones like 'mode', 'files', 'bandwidth_hz', and 'identification', get no meaning or format hints.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Save ... signal to the logbook,' which plainly distinguishes it from sibling log tools like search_log and delete_log_entry. It also covers the identified-or-mystery case, but does not explicitly name or contrast siblings.
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?
There is no statement of when to log versus running identify_frequency or analyze_signal first, nor any exclusion or alternative. The phrase 'identified (or mystery)' hints that both confirmed and unknown signals are valid inputs, but no operational guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.