Reports whether SDR++ is running and returns its center/VFO frequency, mode, source, gain, sample rate, rigctl/IQ Exporter reachability, and installed decoders.
Report SDR++ state: running, centre/VFO frequency, mode, source, gain, sample rate, whether rigctl and the IQ Exporter are reachable, and which decoders are installed.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation by 'Report' and lists what information is returned, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or has any rate 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the core action and then enumerates the relevant state fields. Every element earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.
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, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned state fields. It does not specify the output format or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter status tool this is fairly 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There are no parameter semantics to add beyond what the empty schema already conveys.
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 'Report' and resource 'SDR++ state', and enumerates the exact state fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., sdr_tune, sdr_power) beyond being the only status-reporting tool.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or that it should be called before tuning or after launching. Usage is only implied by the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.