Skip to main content
Glama
hamqth-mcp

hamqth-mcp

by qso-graph

Hamqth Dxcc

hamqth_dxcc
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a DXCC entity from a callsign or ADIF entity code. Use it to map amateur radio callsigns or codes to the correct DXCC entity without authentication.

Instructions

Resolve a DXCC entity from a callsign or ADIF entity code.

Public endpoint — no authentication required.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "hamqth_dxcc"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesCallsign (e.g., VP8PJ) or ADIF entity code (e.g., 291).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds one genuinely useful operational detail — no authentication needed — but says nothing about rate limits, failure modes for unresolvable callsigns, or result caching.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the operational note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema, rich annotations, and a fully documented single parameter, little more is strictly required. Still, an agent choosing among seven hamqth tools gets no disambiguation here, which is the one real gap for a resolver tool that overlaps heavily with hamqth_lookup.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already gives examples for both accepted forms (callsign and ADIF entity code). The description reinforces the dual-input nature but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ("Resolve") plus specific resource ("DXCC entity") with the two accepted input forms stated, so the tool's function is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from hamqth_lookup or hamqth_bio, which an agent will likely hesitate between when it has a callsign in hand.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence ("Public endpoint — no authentication required") is an operational fact, not usage guidance. Nothing says when to prefer this over hamqth_lookup, or when an agent should already have an entity code versus a callsign.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.