Skip to main content
Glama
qrz-mcp

qrz-mcp

by qso-graph

Qrz Logbook Status

qrz_logbook_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve QRZ logbook statistics—QSO count, DXCC total, and date range—for a configured persona to track operating activity.

Instructions

Get QRZ logbook statistics (QSO count, DXCC total, date range).

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>"
    },
    "name": "qrz_logbook_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

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 safety and network behavior are covered by structured data. The description adds only the output shape in prose (a summary of counts and a date range), which the output schema likely covers anyway; no rate-limit, auth, or error behavior is mentioned.

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 the resource first and the returned metrics in parentheses. Zero filler, nothing to trim.

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 needn't explain return values or side effects. What it plausibly lacks is a pointer to the sibling that returns actual QSO records, but for a one-parameter status call it is close to complete.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents `persona` as a configured persona name. The description adds nothing about how the persona scopes the queried logbook, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 + resource ("Get QRZ logbook statistics") with an inline enumeration of the metrics returned (QSO count, DXCC total, date range). It is distinguishable in practice from qrz_logbook_fetch, but the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred 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?

Usage is only implied by the word "statistics" – an agent can guess this is the read-only summary call versus qrz_logbook_fetch for actual records. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the five sibling tools, so no routing guidance is provided.

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