search_enumerationsSearch ADIF 3.1.7 enumerations by term and optionally filter by enumeration name to find valid amateur radio logging values.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing about search semantics (substring vs exact, case sensitivity, which fields are searched) or the shape/nature of results despite having a search-based behavior worth disclosing.
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 verb and resource, with no filler. Brevity is fine; the problem is missing content rather than excess.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required, but for a search tool with an undocumented required parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves an agent unable to construct a correct query or distinguish it from a sibling listing tool.
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 and it largely does not. It loosely explains that 'enumeration' acts as an optional name filter, but the required 'search_term' parameter — the core of the tool — is never described at all.
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 ('Searches ADIF 3.1.7 enumerations') and adds the version, but it never clarifies what is actually being matched or how it differs from the sibling list_enumerations, so an agent cannot confidently pick between the two.
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?
No when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of list_enumerations, the obvious alternative for enumeration browsing. The only hint is the word 'Optionally filter', which implies a search-first workflow but doesn't state it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.