Skip to main content
Glama

Aerset · normativa de drones en España

Puntos de vuelo cerca

spots_near
Read-onlyIdempotent

Busca puntos de vuelo cerca de una coordenada, de la comunidad de pilotos de Aerset: nombre, coordenada, tipo de dron al que va bien y la dificultad que se le comprobó, con la fecha de esa comprobación. Es conocimiento de la comunidad y NO una fuente oficial: dice adónde va la gente, no qué exige la norma. Que un punto figure aquí no dice nada sobre el espacio aéreo de hoy — la dificultad es la del día en que se comprobó y no se recalcula—, así que los trámites los contesta flight_requirements y la última palabra la tienen AESA y el visor oficial de ENAIRE. · Finds flying spots near a coordinate from Aerset's pilot community, with the difficulty each one was checked at and the date of that check. Community knowledge, not an official source: it says where people go and nothing about what the regulation demands. A spot appearing here says nothing about today's airspace — its difficulty is the day it was checked and is never recomputed — so ask flight_requirements for the paperwork, and the authority and ENAIRE's official viewer have the last word.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latYes
lonYes
radius_kmNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
spotsNo
availableNo
checked_atNo
disclaimerNoOrientación con fuentes, no autorización. Aerset no concede permisos ni los tramita. La última palabra la tienen AESA y el visor oficial de ENAIRE, y cada decisión operativa se consulta con la autoridad antes del vuelo.
note_on_verdictsNoLa dificultad de cada punto es la del día en que se comprobó, y esa fecha viaja con el punto; sin fecha, está sin comprobar. No se recalcula sola.
invalid_argumentsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot: difficulty is a static snapshot that is never recomputed, the data is community-sourced and not authoritative, and its presence implies nothing about current airspace or legality. That is exactly the caveat an agent needs to avoid misusing the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Content is front-loaded and each caveat is relevant, but the whole description is duplicated verbatim in Spanish and English, doubling length without adding information. Roughly half the text is redundant for any single-language agent.

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, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, alternatives, and data-provenance caveats well. The only shortfall is the unaddressed radius/coordinate parameter semantics, which the schema leaves bare.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters, and the description only implies a proximity search around a coordinate. It gives no units, default, or meaning for radius_km and no range/format guidance for lat/lon, so it does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Busca puntos de vuelo cerca de una coordenada') and enumerates the returned fields (nombre, coordenada, tipo de dron, dificultad, fecha). It explicitly separates itself from the regulation tools, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use (community knowledge of where people fly) and when-not (regulatory/airspace questions), and names the correct alternative: 'los trámites los contesta `flight_requirements`'. Routing is unambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources