Search the SDR++ logbook by text, frequency range, or both to find logged radio signals.
Search the logbook by text and/or frequency range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stop | No | ||
| text | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 does not say whether text matching is case-insensitive/substring, how start/stop are interpreted, whether both filters combine with AND, or how results are ordered; only the existence of an output schema spares it from explaining return values.
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 with no filler; the filter dimensions come before any elaboration. The brevity is appropriate in form even though the content is thin.
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 a 4-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves matching semantics, frequency-range format, limit/ordering behavior, and empty-result handling undefined. The presence of an output schema only offsets the return-value 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% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to text and to start/stop via 'frequency range', but never explains that start/stop are frequency strings, what the string format is, or what 'limit' (default 50) controls.
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 ('Search') and resource ('the logbook') plus the two filter dimensions (text, frequency range), which separates it from log_signal and delete_log_entry. It is clear but minimal, with no explicit naming of the sibling it complements.
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?
The description implies retrieval from the logbook but never says when to prefer this over log_signal, delete_log_entry, or export_bookmarks, nor any prerequisites. An agent must infer the use case entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.