parse_adifStream large ADIF files by reading records from a start point with a limit for selective amateur radio log review.
Streaming parser for large ADIF files with record seeking.
SECURITY NOTE: This tool reads files from the local filesystem using the provided path. Only pass paths to ADIF log files you own.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| start_at | No | ||
| file_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses streaming behavior, record seeking, and that the tool reads local filesystem paths with a security warning, but it omits return format, pagination effects of limit/start_at, and error behavior.
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?
The description is two sentences plus a security note, with the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient and the security note earns its place, though the all-caps formatting is mildly distracting rather than harmful.
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 3-parameter parser with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It adds a valuable security warning but leaves parameter semantics, return shape, and pagination behavior unexplained.
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%, so the description should explain file_path, limit, and start_at. It only hints at record seeking, which loosely relates to start_at and limit, but it never maps parameters to meanings or explains their defaults.
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 states a specific action and resource: parsing ADIF files, with the qualifiers 'streaming' and 'large' and the feature 'record seeking'. It is clearer than a bare restatement of the name, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as validate_adif_record.
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 phrase 'for large ADIF files with record seeking' implies a use case, but the description never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like validate_adif_record, nor does it give explicit when-not conditions. The security note constrains accepted paths but not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.