validate_adif_recordValidates an ADIF record against ADIF 3.1.7 rules, including enum membership, to help ensure amateur radio logging data is correct before parsing or import.
Validates an ADIF record against 3.1.7 rules including enum membership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adif_string | 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by naming the spec version 3.1.7 and that enum membership is part of the check, but it says nothing about what an invalid record yields (error vs. a result object) or whether validation is strict/lenient.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than maximally informative.
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 values need not be explained. However, for a validation tool the agent still needs to know the input shape it will accept and what a failed validation looks like; both are absent, leaving a gap for a single-parameter 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?
One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It only implies the parameter is an ADIF record string by naming it 'an ADIF record'; it does not clarify whether a header is required, whether multiple records are accepted, or expected formatting.
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?
Specific verb (validates) plus resource (ADIF record) plus the rule set version (3.1.7) and the enum-membership scope. This distinguishes it reasonably from parse_adif, though it does not explicitly state the relationship to that sibling or to list_enumerations.
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 statement of when to use this versus parse_adif, read_specification_resource, or list_enumerations. The agent must infer that this is the check-after-parse / pre-parse gate, with nothing in the text to confirm it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.