Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.qso-graph/ionis-mcp

io.github.qso-graph/ionis-mcp

by qso-graph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Band Openings

band_openings
Read-onlyIdempotent

Shows hour-by-hour propagation openings for a given band between two Maidenhead grid squares, including SNR, reliability, SFI, and solar elevation at both endpoints.

Instructions

When does a specific band open between two grid squares?

Shows propagation hour-by-hour (0-23z) for a grid pair on a given band. Includes spot-count-weighted SNR, reliability, SFI, and solar elevation at both endpoints.

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": {
      "tx_grid": "<tx_grid>",
      "rx_grid": "<rx_grid>",
      "band": "<band>"
    },
    "name": "band_openings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bandYesADIF band ID (102-111)
sourceNoall
rx_gridYesReceiver 4-char Maidenhead grid (e.g., "JO51")
tx_gridYesTransmitter 4-char Maidenhead grid (e.g., "DN13")

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.9

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the output is spot-count-weighted SNR, reliability, SFI, and solar elevation at both endpoints, which tells the agent about methodology and data quality. It stops short of describing coverage limits, data sources, or granularity beyond hourly, and the output schema already carries much of the return-shape burden.

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?

Front-loaded with the driving question, then a compact two-sentence payload listing scope and returned metrics. Nothing is wasted; the only minor inefficiency is that returned metrics are partly restated by the output schema.

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?

Given an output schema exists and three of four parameters are schema-documented, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it: the grid pair, the band, and the hourly time axis. The undocumented 'source' parameter and the absence of any alternative-tool routing are the remaining shortfalls.

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 75%, with tx_grid, rx_grid, and band documented in the schema. The description reinforces the grid-pair and band semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. The 'source' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap that the description does not compensate for.

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 question and resource: hour-by-hour propagation openings for a given band between two grid squares. This is clearly a propagation-lookup tool, distinct from list_datasets or solar_correlation, though it never names a sibling or explicitly distinguishes itself from path_analysis or band_summary.

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?

The opening question ('When does a specific band open between two grid squares?') implies the use case well, giving an agent a concrete scenario to match against. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like band_summary, path_analysis, or dark_hour_analysis, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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