Skip to main content
Glama
n1mm-mcp

n1mm-mcp

by qso-graph

N1Mm Multipliers

n1mm_multipliers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query N1MM Logger+ multiplier status to see worked mults, per-band grids, unworked spotted needs, and mult value analysis by station or band.

Instructions

Multiplier status — worked mults, mult map, and available needs.

Returns total mults worked, per-band mult grid, unworked mults currently spotted, and mult value analysis.

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_multipliers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bandNoFilter to specific band.
station_nameNoStation to query.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds useful detail about what data comes back (worked totals, per-band grid, unworked spotted mults, value analysis), but says nothing about cost, freshness relative to the live N1MM instance, or empty-state behavior.

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?

Roughly two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the enumeration of outputs, and every clause contributes content. Slightly list-like phrasing but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so re-describing the return payload is largely redundant; the real gaps are the missing sibling differentiation and usage context for a zero-required-parameter tool. What is present is accurate but doesn't cover everything an agent needs to choose this tool confidently.

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% — band and station_name are each documented in the schema — so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond that baseline. It does not explain, for example, that omitting band yields an all-band grid.

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 names a specific resource ('multiplier status') and enumerates the four reports it produces, so an agent knows this is a read-only multiplier-analysis tool rather than a contact or bandmap listing. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like n1mm_contacts or n1mm_bandmap, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus n1mm_contacts, n1mm_bandmap, or n1mm_performance, and no mention of prerequisites such as an active contest or log. Usage must be inferred purely from the resource name.

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