netlogger_active_netsList currently active amateur-radio nets, optionally filtering by name, to find live nets and check-ins without searching manually.
List nets on the air now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name_like | No | Only nets whose name contains this text, ignoring case (e.g. OMISS). Empty for all. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor describe freshness/latency of the 'now' data or how filtering interacts with the live set. Only the temporal scope is conveyed.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, and the key scope constraint ('now') is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-written, but nothing is wasted.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional param, output schema present, so return format need not be explained), and the description covers the core purpose. However, with no annotations it should say more about safety/behavior to be complete for an agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single name_like parameter is fully documented with case-insensitivity and empty-string semantics in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (nets) with a temporal scope qualifier ('on the air now') that implicitly distinguishes it from netlogger_past_nets. It does not name the sibling, but the active-vs-past contrast is inferable.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as netlogger_past_nets or netlogger_checkins. The phrase 'on the air now' hints at the active filter, but the agent is left to infer when this tool is preferred over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.