io.github.qso-graph/ionis-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Query Signatures

query_signatures

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and filter propagation signatures across WSPR, RBN, contest, DXpedition, and PSKR data by band, hour, month, or grid to analyze HF radio path conditions.

Instructions

Query propagation signatures with filters.

Searches across WSPR, RBN, Contest, DXpedition, and PSKR signature tables. All signature tables share the same 13-column schema.

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": "query_signatures"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`band`	No	ADIF band ID (102=160m, 103=80m, 104=60m, 105=40m, 106=30m, 107=20m, 108=17m, 109=15m, 110=12m, 111=10m)
`hour`	No	UTC hour (0-23)
`limit`	No	Max rows returned (default: 100, max: 1000)
`month`	No	Month (1-12)
`source`	No	"wspr", "rbn", "contest", "dxpedition", "pskr", or "all"	all
`rx_grid`	No	RX grid square (4-char or 2-char)
`tx_grid`	No	TX grid square (4-char like "DN13" or 2-char field like "DN")
`min_spots`	No	Minimum spot count filter (default: 5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.9May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context that it searches across multiple signature tables and that all share a 13-column schema, but it does not add deeper behavioral details such as pagination behavior or result ordering.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes: the first states the operation and filtering, the second lists covered sources, and the third records the shared table schema. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 the rich structured context—100% schema coverage, strong annotations, and an output schema—the description provides enough high-level scope for an agent to understand what the tool queries. It could still say more about when this tool is preferred over related analysis siblings, but the essential call context is present.

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 eight parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only refers generally to 'filters' and names the source tables, adding little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: querying propagation signatures with filters. It also names the concrete source tables (WSPR, RBN, Contest, DXpedition, PSKR), which helps identify scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as compare_sources 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many sibling analysis tools. An agent can infer that this is for signature queries, but it must decide on its own when to choose this over compare_sources or summary tools.

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

Deploy Server