search_enumerationsFind valid ADIF 3.1.7 enumeration values and optionally filter by enumeration name to populate or validate amateur radio log fields.
Searches ADIF 3.1.7 enumerations. Optionally filter by enumeration name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enumeration | No | ||
| search_term | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.4Does 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 disclose matching semantics, case sensitivity, pagination, or result ordering. The existence of an output schema covers return structure, but behavior beyond that remains undocumented.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the gaps in parameter and usage detail.
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 search tool with two parameters (one required and undocumented) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It neither explains the required search_term semantics nor routes the agent between this and the similarly named list_enumerations sibling.
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 must compensate. It clarifies that 'enumeration' is an optional filter by name, adding some meaning, but it entirely omits the required 'search_term' parameter and its expected format or matching behavior.
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 verb and resource: 'Searches ADIF 3.1.7 enumerations.' This is clear and tells an agent what the tool does without opening the schema. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling list_enumerations, so it misses the top mark.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this over list_enumerations or read_specification_resource, and no prerequisites. The clause 'Optionally filter by enumeration name' describes a parameter rather than usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.