Manage amateur radio message forms by signaling an active forms application. Check online status, transfer form data, and retrieve received messages without keying the transmitter.
flmsg (message forms) interworking. operations: online, available, transfer, squelch, get_data (RX data since the last query).
These signal or hand data to a running flmsg; none of them key the transmitter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add some useful context: operations require a running flmsg and do not key the transmitter, and get_data is clarified as returning RX data since the last query. But the behaviors of online, available, transfer, and squelch are left completely unexplained.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded, with the operation list first and the safety-relevant caveat second. Every sentence contributes, though the opening phrase 'flmsg (message forms) interworking' is a bit awkward and could be phrased more clearly.
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?
Given the absence of annotations, an output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. It names operations but does not explain most of them, their expected effects, return values, or prerequisites beyond needing a running flmsg.
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?
The schema only defines an 'operation' string with no enum or descriptions, so the description's list of operations adds real value by enumerating likely accepted values. It even explains get_data, but the other operation names are not defined, so the agent still lacks enough semantic detail to choose confidently.
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 states that the tool signals or hands data to a running flmsg, which is a clear enough action on a named resource. The operation list adds specificity, and the caveat that none of the operations key the transmitter helps separate it from transmit-focused siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
The phrase 'signal or hand data to a running flmsg' implies when the tool is appropriate, and 'none of them key the transmitter' provides a useful exclusion. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling tools or how to select among the listed operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.