uk-radio-mcp

radioid_api

Query live RadioID REST API endpoints for repeater and radio data by specifying a path and optional parameters; uses RADIOID_API_TOKEN when configured.

Instructions

Call the live RadioID REST API, e.g. path='repeaters/dmr' params={'country':'United Kingdom'}. Uses RADIOID_API_TOKEN if set. per_page is capped at 200 by the service.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "radioid_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`params`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the API is live, uses RADIOID_API_TOKEN if set, and that per_page is capped at 200, but it does not state whether calls are read-only, what rate limits apply, or how errors and responses behave.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is two tight sentences with the core action and example front-loaded. It avoids waste, though the example and service constraints could be structured more explicitly for scanability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a generic live REST API wrapper with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits the supported path catalog, HTTP method/read-only behavior, response format, error handling, and pagination behavior beyond the per_page cap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It provides an example path and params object and mentions the per_page cap, but it does not document allowed path values, parameter encoding, defaults, or which query parameters are supported.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action and resource: call the live RadioID REST API, with an example path. However, the scope is broad and it does not distinguish this raw API access from more specific sibling tools such as lookup_dmr_id or repeaterbook_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The example shows one possible call, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this generic API tool instead of the more targeted lookup or search tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server