sota_alertsRetrieve upcoming Summits on the Air activation alerts within a chosen time window and filter by association to plan summit contacts.
Get upcoming SOTA activation alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Look-ahead window in hours (default 16). | |
| association | No | Filter by SOTA association (e.g., W7I). Empty for all. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does 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 only the time-bound framing ('upcoming'), with nothing about data source, refresh cadence, or what an empty result means — modest added value against a low bar.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool that competes with a closely related sibling.
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 explained, and the schema fully covers the two optional parameters. What is missing is the disambiguation from sota_spots and any note on the 16-hour default window's practical meaning, which matters for an open-world data tool.
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 both parameters (hours window, association filter) are fully documented in the schema with defaults and an example. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get ... SOTA activation alerts') and the word 'upcoming' signals a forward-looking query, which implicitly differentiates it from the live sota_spots sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming sota_spots, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than read it.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus sota_spots (current spots) or the summit-lookup tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. 'Upcoming' hints at the use case but the agent is left to infer the routing decision entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.