Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
qrz-mcp

qrz-mcp

by qso-graph
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Qrz Dxcc

qrz_dxcc
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a DXCC entity from a callsign or numeric DXCC code using a configured persona to support lookups and logging.

Instructions

Resolve a DXCC entity from a callsign or numeric entity code.

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": {
      "persona": "<persona>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "qrz_dxcc"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesCallsign (e.g., VP8PJ) or DXCC code (e.g., 291).
personaYesPersona name configured in adif-mcp.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on failure for unknown callsigns, no indication that resolution may hit the QRZ network, no coverage of the persona requirement.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding; the resource and both input forms come through immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and both parameters are fully documented, so the minimal description is almost sufficient to invoke the tool. What is missing is positioning relative to qrz_lookup and any failure-mode context, which matters for an agent choosing among five QRZ siblings.

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 the schema itself gives the format for both accepted query forms (callsign example VP8PJ, code example 291). The description restates that duality but contributes no additional semantics such as case sensitivity or prefix handling.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('DXCC entity') plus the accepted input forms, which clearly distinguishes it from a generic callsign lookup like qrz_lookup. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the split.

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 purpose implies when to use it (you have a callsign or a numeric DXCC code and need the entity), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the closest alternative, qrz_lookup.

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