Skip to main content
Glama
n1mm-mcp

n1mm-mcp

by qso-graph

N1Mm Lookup

n1mm_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a callsign in N1MM Logger+ to get station data plus current band/mode before logging a contest QSO; flags results older than 30 seconds as stale.

Instructions

Pre-log callsign lookup — THE Contest-Copilot trigger.

Fires when operator types a callsign and presses spacebar in N1MM. Returns the lookup data plus current band/mode from RadioInfo. Check lookup_age_ms — if >30000, the advice window has closed.

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": "n1mm_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
station_nameNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the trigger event, the inclusion of current band/mode from RadioInfo, and the lookup_age_ms >30000 staleness cutoff.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the trigger, return context, and staleness rule. Every sentence contributes operational information with no waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema and rich annotations reduce the description's burden, and it covers the trigger, return context, and staleness handling well. However, the only input parameter remains unexplained despite 0% schema description coverage, leaving a real gap for callers that need station_name.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the sole station_name parameter. Because it adds no meaning for that parameter—and may even make the agent think only callsign context matters—it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action and context: a pre-log callsign lookup that fires on a callsign plus spacebar in N1MM. It is clearly distinct in practice from siblings like n1mm_current_state or n1mm_contacts, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear when-to-use trigger: operator types a callsign and presses spacebar in N1MM. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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