netlogger-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Netlogger Checkins

netlogger_checkins

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a live amateur-radio net's check-in list and the current net-control pointer (station serial number) by providing the net name and server.

Instructions

Get a live net's check-in list, and the pointer: the serial number of the station net control is working now.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "server_name": "<server_name>",
      "net_name": "<net_name>"
    },
    "name": "netlogger_checkins"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`net_name`	Yes	The net's name, from netlogger_active_nets.
`server_name`	Yes	The net's server, from netlogger_active_nets (e.g. NETLOGGER2).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by explaining what the 'pointer' is (station net control is working now), which is non-obvious and not in the schema — though it doesn't mention that results change as check-ins arrive or any auth/rate constraints.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary return value and then clarifies the less obvious secondary one; no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers both what is returned and the pointer semantics. It could still say what happens for a net that isn't live, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented, including that they come from netlogger_active_nets. The description adds no further meaning about the parameters, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a live net's check-in list') plus the extra return value (the serial-number pointer). The word 'live' implicitly separates it from sibling netlogger_past_checkins, though the sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'live net' and by the schema note that net_name/server_name come from netlogger_active_nets. It never says when to prefer it over netlogger_past_checkins or what to do if the net is not currently running.

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

Deploy Server