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

Compare Sources

compare_sources
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare HF propagation data from multiple sources (WSPR, RBN, Contest, DXpedition, PSKR) for a specific path and band to validate observations across independent measurement systems.

Instructions

Cross-dataset comparison for a path/band.

Shows side-by-side data from all available sources (WSPR, RBN, Contest, DXpedition, PSKR) for the same path. Useful for validating observations across independent measurement systems.

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": "compare_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bandYesADIF band ID (102-111)
hourNoSpecific UTC hour (omit for all hours)
rx_gridYesReceiver 4-char grid
tx_gridYesTransmitter 4-char grid

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine context about what comes back — side-by-side data across five named source systems — which is more than the annotations provide, but says nothing about coverage gaps, empty results when a source has no data, or response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the source list, then the rationale. Slightly trimmed could fold the source list into sentence one, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is properly delegated, and the four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description supplies the one thing structured fields don't: which source systems are compared. Only the optional hour parameter's role is left entirely to the schema.

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%, so the schema fully documents tx_grid, rx_grid, band, and hour. The description only restates that a path and band are the inputs and never mentions the optional hour filter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb ('cross-dataset comparison') and the scope of the query (a path/band), and enumerates the five sources involved (WSPR, RBN, Contest, DXpedition, PSKR). This is distinguishable from siblings like path_analysis or band_summary, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against them.

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 closing line gives a motivation ('validating observations across independent measurement systems'), which implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus path_analysis or query_signatures, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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