Skip to main content
Glama

Affine Earth Math Court Remote

atc.assert_4d_deconfliction

Exact 4D separation over declared trajectories in integer-scaled geodetic coordinates: decide whether any two are ever SIMULTANEOUSLY inside the stated separation minima, and return either a separation certificate or the violating pair with the exact interval and magnitude of the incursion. Integer micro-degrees, feet and seconds with rational time parameters; no floating point and no epsilon, so separation exactly equal to the minima is separated and nine cells return the same verdict from the same bytes. The longitude frame is the caller's to state exactly, as an optional rational scale with its reference latitude, so the cos(latitude) approximation is chosen deliberately and on the record rather than done in floating point outside the boundary. Civil FAA/ICAO framing; a traffic-analysis instrument, never a control tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
obs_seqNodecimal string; a sealed AirspaceObservationSeal sequence is ONE INSTANT of sky and carries no time base, so supplying it alone returns NOT_MEASURED_OBSERVATION_SET_HAS_NO_TIME_BASE rather than a fabricated verdict
trajectoriesYesdeclared 4D paths: id plus waypoints as decimal strings, strictly advancing in time
lon_scale_denNoOPTIONAL, denominator of the longitude scale as decimal string. RECOMMENDED: six digits or fewer. Cosine to 1e-6 is far below any error that could change a verdict about aircraft, and a six-digit denominator clears every segment-pair time base up to 8589 seconds; a three-digit one clears any time base at all. The hard ceiling is 1000000000, but the binding limit is per-request: 8589934592 divided by the segment pair time base, which is the least common multiple of the two segment durations. Above it the pair returns NOT_MEASURED_SCALED_TIME_BASE_EXCEEDS_EXACT_RANGE naming the exact denominator ceiling that clears at that time base, so the remedy is read off the refusal rather than found by bisection. Reduce the ratio to lowest terms or round it to fewer digits
lon_scale_numNoOPTIONAL exact rational longitude scale, numerator as decimal string. Stands for cos(latitude), which is not rational -- so the caller states the approximation it chose and everything after that choice is exact. The test becomes (dlat*den)^2 + (dlon*num)^2 < (minima*den)^2, entirely in integers; latitude is never scaled. Must satisfy 1 <= num <= den
look_ahead_secondsNooptional horizon clipped forward from the earliest declared time, decimal string
vertical_minima_feetYesREQUIRED decimal string, no default
reference_lat_micro_degNoOPTIONAL decimal string, the latitude the scale was computed for. REQUIRED whenever a scale is declared: all three fields travel together and a partial declaration is refused with REFUSED_INCOMPLETE_LONGITUDE_SCALE rather than silently ignored. WHEN ALL THREE ARE ABSENT the predicate decides in the plain declared micro-degree coordinate plane with no correction, reports longitude_scale NOT_DECLARED on the certificate, and says so -- a coordinate statement is never presented as a ground distance
horizontal_minima_micro_degYesREQUIRED decimal string, no default -- a defaulted separation standard is a verdict about a rule the caller never stated

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses no floating point and no epsilon, that equality with the minima counts as separated, deterministic byte-for-byte output, exact rational longitude scaling, and that missing coordinate scales are reported honestly rather than presented as ground distance. This is deep, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to know before invoking.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is four dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted filler. The only deduction is for the cryptic phrase 'nine cells return the same verdict from the same bytes,' which is likely intended to convey determinism but may confuse an agent more than it helps.

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?

For a complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, exact arithmetic behavior, output alternatives, coordinate-frame policy, and usage boundary. It does not define the structure of a 'separation certificate' or enumerate all refusal paths, which are partially left to the schema, so a small completeness gap remains.

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%, so all parameters already have explanatory descriptions. The main description adds the exact-integer and rational-time execution model and the caller's responsibility for longitude scale, but it does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The opening sentence names the exact operation: decide whether any two declared trajectories are ever SIMULTANEOUSLY inside stated separation minima, and return either a separation certificate or the violating pair with exact interval and magnitude. This is specific, distinguishes it from the unrelated quantum/verification siblings, and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool computes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage context: 'Civil FAA/ICAO framing; a traffic-analysis instrument, never a control tool.' This tells an agent when it is appropriate and explicitly rules out a control context. However, it does not name any alternative tool or formalize when a sibling should be preferred, so it stops short of full when-vs-alternative guidance.

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.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many verify_* tools are distinct, but there are overlapping clusters: math_court duplicates execute_2local_hamiltonian, route_spin_glass_manifold, and the quantum verifiers; project_affine_key, expose, verify_presented_pair, and the optional affine exposes in other tools blur together; weather and geometry tools also overlap. The detailed descriptions help a human, but an agent would likely struggle to choose between equivalent-seeming entry points.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is mostly snake_case but otherwise inconsistent: some tools use dotted prefixes (atc.*, twin.robotics.*, weather.*), some use bare verbs (expose, lattice_op, math_court), some use noun phrases (corpus_bonds, feeds_catalog), and others mix prefixes with verbs (ide_rebuild_mesh, umc_resume). The verify_* family is consistent, but the overall set has no single predictable verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

49 tools is far above the typical well-scoped server size and includes multiple near-duplicate paths to the same law (math_court, execute_*, route_*, verify_*). While not quite 50+, the count still feels like a sprawling kitchen-sink rather than a deliberate minimal surface.

Completeness3/5

The toolset covers a surprisingly wide range: QC verifiers, QMA laws, affine projections, corpus reads, weather, UMC state, and robotics IK. However, there are notable gaps for such a broad surface: no general court case lifecycle beyond expose/seal, no corpus content search, and no way to manage or update sealed artifacts; several areas have only entry-point coverage.

Resources