Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hamqth-mcp

hamqth-mcp

by qso-graph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Hamqth Verify Qso

hamqth_verify_qso
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies whether a QSO exists in HamQTH's database for both callsigns using the public SAVP protocol with no authentication required.

Instructions

Verify a QSO via HamQTH SAVP protocol (public, no auth required).

Checks if a QSO exists in HamQTH's database for both parties.

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": {
      "mycall": "<mycall>",
      "hiscall": "<hiscall>",
      "date": "<date>",
      "band": "<band>"
    },
    "name": "hamqth_verify_qso"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bandYesBand (e.g., "20M", "40M").
dateYesQSO date in YYYYMMDD format (e.g., "20260305").
mycallYesYour callsign (e.g., "KI7MT").
hiscallYesOther station's callsign (e.g., "OK2CQR").

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 covered. The description adds genuine context by disclosing the auth model (public, no credentials needed) and naming the SAVP protocol, but says nothing about rate limits, failure modes, or what a negative verification looks like.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence carries real information (bilateral existence check) rather than restating the first.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose and calling context, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't state what happens on a failed/negative verification or any caveats about SAVP data freshness.

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% and every parameter (mycall, hiscall, date, band) carries its own format example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting both parties' callsigns are involved.

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 verb and resource ('Verify a QSO via HamQTH SAVP protocol') and clarifies the check is bilateral ('for both parties'). It is clearly distinguishable from the lookup/bio/spot siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the description notes it is 'public, no auth required', which tells the agent it can be called unconditionally. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or comparison to the other hamqth_* tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools