Aeronaves militares transmitindo ADS-B agora no mundo. Retorna { total_airborne, aircraft[] } com posição, tipo e callsign de cada uma.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "flightradar_military"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only that the data is 'now' (live), which is minimal. No extra disclosure about side effects, rate limits, or data freshness is provided, so it adds little beyond the annotations.
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 succinct and to the point, conveying the essential purpose without fluff. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for parameters or output), but for a simple tool it is appropriately concise.
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?
While the output structure is partially described (total_airborne and aircraft[] with fields), the description omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter and does not fully specify the aircraft object fields (only position, type, callsign are mentioned). Given the lack of output schema, this description is not complete enough for reliable usage.
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 only parameter, 'limit', is not explained at all in the description or schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent cannot infer what 'limit' does (e.g., maximum number of aircraft returned). This is a significant gap.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns military aircraft currently transmitting ADS-B, with total count and an array of aircraft details (position, type, callsign). It also distinguishes from other flightradar tools like flightradar_aircraft by focusing on military craft.
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 description implies usage (when military aircraft data is needed) but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like flightradar_aircraft or flightradar_nearby. No comparison or context is provided, so the decision is left to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.