pota_park_statsRetrieve activation and QSO counts for a POTA park reference to check activity levels and support activation or hunter planning.
Get activation and QSO counts for a POTA park.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes | Park reference code (e.g., US-0001). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that aggregation over activations and QSOs is what's returned, but says nothing about whether the response is a lifetime total, a per-year breakdown, or how caching/freshness works.
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?
One tight sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that the scope of 'counts' is left ambiguous.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But in a dense sibling cluster of park-scoped tools, the description should have stated what set this apart from pota_park_info and pota_park_activations; that routing information is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is documented with a concrete example format (US-0001), so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about reference semantics, which is acceptable at baseline 3.
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 and resource ('Get activation and QSO counts for a POTA park'), which is clearly a statistics/aggregate operation, distinct from map-listing tools like pota_spots. However, it never names or contrasts the closest siblings (pota_park_info, pota_park_activations), so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus pota_park_info (park metadata) or pota_park_activations (raw activations). The agent must guess whether counts come from this tool or can be derived from the activations list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.