jt_diagnosticsShow listener status, incoming messages, dropped packets, and WSJT-X instance versions/heartbeats.
The listener itself: where it listens, who may send, what has arrived, what was dropped and from where, and each WSJT-X instance's version and last heartbeat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description adds semantic scope—listener configuration, allowed senders, dropped messages, WSJT-X heartbeats—but does not disclose operational behavior like update frequency, response size, or whether it is a live snapshot. With annotations handling safety, this is modest added value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single dense fragment, not a sentence, and the noun-phrase structure buries the tool's action. The field list is compact but not front-loaded with what the tool does, which costs clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema, the main missing piece is a clear action statement and sibling differentiation. The description covers data content well but leaves an agent unsure about when to call it versus jt_status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies because the schema imposes no semantic burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a noun-phrase inventory ('The listener itself: where it listens, who may send...') rather than a clear verb+resource statement. An agent can infer it returns listener diagnostics, but it never states what the tool does (e.g., 'returns' or 'reports'), and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from jt_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no sentence telling when to use this tool versus jt_status or any sibling, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. The description only enumerates data fields, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.