Skip to main content
Glama
netlogger-mcp

netlogger-mcp

by qso-graph

Netlogger Active Nets

netlogger_active_nets
Read-onlyIdempotent

List amateur-radio nets currently on the air, optionally filtered by name, so you can quickly find active nets to monitor or join.

Instructions

List nets on the air now.

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": "netlogger_active_nets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
name_likeNoOnly nets whose name contains this text, ignoring case (e.g. ARES). Empty for all.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / name_like / description
      Previous value: -"Only nets whose name contains this text, ignoring case (e.g. OMISS). Empty for all."New value: +"Only nets whose name contains this text, ignoring case\n(e.g. ARES). Empty for all."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the real-time scope ("on the air now"); it says nothing extra about filtering behavior, result freshness, or upstream availability. Output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required.

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?

Six words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. Nothing can be removed without losing information.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential scope. A brief note on the name filter or on data freshness/availability would fully close the gap.

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?

The single name_like parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including case-insensitive substring matching and the empty-string default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at full 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?

Specific verb (list) and resource (nets) with a temporal qualifier ("on the air now") that implicitly separates it from netlogger_past_nets. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the distinction relies on inference.

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?

"Now" implies using this for live/current nets rather than historical ones, but the description never states when to prefer netlogger_past_nets or netlogger_checkins. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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