Skip to main content
Glama
hamqth-mcp

hamqth-mcp

by qso-graph

Hamqth Rbn

hamqth_rbn
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Reverse Beacon Network spots from HamQTH with optional filters for age, band, callsign, continent, and mode. Use to monitor real-time CW/RTTY/PSK activity.

Instructions

Reverse Beacon Network spots from HamQTH (public, no auth required).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "hamqth_rbn"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ageNoMaximum age in seconds.
bandNoADIF band numbers, comma-separated (e.g., "20,40").
callNoOptional callsign filter — matches spotted station (case-insensitive, e.g., "3Y0K"). Filtered client-side.
contNoFilter by spotted station's continent (e.g., "EU", "NA").
modeNoFilter by mode (CW, RTTY, PSK31, PSK63).
fromcontNoFilter by receiver/skimmer continent.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact – the endpoint is public and requires no auth – but says nothing about rate limits, result volume, or spot freshness (which the 'age' param hints at).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 and full annotations, the description needn't explain return values. However, for a tool with six filtering dimensions and a same-domain sibling that also returns spots, it omits routing guidance and any hint about defaults or result limits.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six optional parameters are documented in the schema, including the note that 'call' is filtered client-side. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific resource – Reverse Beacon Network spots – and its source (HamQTH), which distinguishes it from hamqth_dx_spots and the other siblings. It implies retrieval rather than naming a verb, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus hamqth_dx_spots or hamqth_activity, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and source.

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