Skip to main content
Glama
omiss-mcp

omiss-mcp

by qso-graph

Omiss Net Checkins

omiss_net_checkins
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a past OMISS net's control, relays, frequency, notes, and check-in list by net ID.

Instructions

Get one past OMISS net: its net control, relays, frequency, net control's notes, and the check-in list.

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": {
      "net_id": "<net_id>"
    },
    "name": "omiss_net_checkins"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
net_idYesThe net's ID, from omiss_checkin_history.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 covered. The description adds that the payload includes net control notes and a full check-in list, which hints at response size, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or what happens if the net_id is unknown.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and subject, and the returned-field list is deferred to the end where it does not obstruct the core action. 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to identify the resource and its scope — which it does. The remaining gap is not naming which sibling to use for live versus historical net data.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already tells the agent the net_id comes from omiss_checkin_history. The description only reinforces that this is a single-net lookup and adds no syntax, range, or lookup-path detail beyond the schema.

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 plus resource: retrieves a single *past* OMISS net with an enumerated content list (net control, relays, frequency, notes, check-in list). The word 'past' implicitly separates it from omiss_nets_on_air, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 singular 'one past OMISS net' plus the schema note that net_id comes from omiss_checkin_history implies the lookup workflow, but the description itself never states when to pick this over omiss_net_schedule, omiss_nets_on_air, or omiss_net_statistics.

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