parse_adifStream and parse large ADIF log files from a local path, using start-at and limit controls to seek through records without loading the entire file.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The security note about reading local filesystem paths adds real context beyond the annotations, but behavior remains vague on what streaming means practically and what a parse result contains.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the security note is short enough to earn its place. Slightly more space is spent on the filesystem caveat than on the parameters an agent actually has to fill in.
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?
With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the definition never explains what the parser returns (records, counts, boundaries) or how limit/start_at combine. For a paginated streaming parser, the agent lacks the information needed to call it correctly on the first try.
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 carries the full burden for limit, start_at, and file_path. "record seeking" loosely gestures at start_at and "large files" at limit, but neither the 1-based indexing, the default window size, nor the meaning of the path beyond the security caveat is explained.
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 and resource ("Streaming parser ... ADIF files") plus a distinguishing trait (streaming, record seeking) that signals handling of large inputs. It does not differentiate from the sibling validate_adif_record, so an agent must infer parse vs. validate on its own.
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?
"for large ADIF files" is the only hint about when this tool is appropriate; there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no guidance on choosing between this and validate_adif_record or any other sibling. The choice is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.