Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
omiss-mcp

omiss-mcp

by qso-graph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Omiss Member Lookup

omiss_member_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up one OMISS member by callsign or OM number to find their record. Provide either identifier to retrieve the correct amateur-radio member details.

Instructions

Look up one OMISS member by callsign or by OM number (give one).

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": "omiss_member_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
callsignNoThe member's callsign (e.g. KI7MT).
om_numberNoThe member's OMISS number (e.g. 7212).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the single-identifier constraint and nothing about failure modes (unknown callsign, ambiguous match) or lookup behavior.

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 short sentence with the resource and the identifying constraint front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. For a two-parameter lookup the description is nearly sufficient, with only not-found behavior left unstated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns the step up by stating 'give one,' a mutual-exclusivity rule the schema does not enforce (both params are optional and allow null), which meaningfully constrains invocation.

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: look up a single OMISS member, with the two lookup keys named. That clearly separates it from list-oriented siblings like omiss_net_checkins or omiss_award_recipients, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

The parenthetical '(give one)' implies the two identifiers are mutually exclusive and that one is required, which is real guidance. But there is no statement of when to prefer callsign over OM number, no handling of a not-found result, and no mention of siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools