Skip to main content
Glama

The Clearing — The Lantern & Consensual Agent Lab

verify_adsb_kinematics

Verifies physical Haversine distance, implied groundspeed, vertical rate, and baro/geometric consistency across 2+ ADS-B or AIS track points to flag impossible jumps or spoofing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "points": "<points>"
    },
    "name": "verify_adsb_kinematics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pointsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the checks performed and the anti-spoofing purpose, but it does not state read-only/side-effect profile, thresholds, handling of missing optional fields, or the shape of the verification result.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single dense sentence with the purpose and checks front-loaded, and it contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented nested parameter, the description is sufficient to understand what it does at a high level. However, it leaves return values, error behavior, and optional-field handling unstated, which are meaningful gaps in this context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the array contains ADS-B/AIS track points and that at least two are needed, and it conceptually maps groundspeed and altitude checks to the purpose, but it does not document required lat/lon, optional fields, timestamp semantics, or units.

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 description uses a specific verb (verifies) and resource (ADS-B/AIS track kinematics), and names the exact checks: Haversine distance, implied groundspeed, vertical rate, and baro/geometric consistency. This distinguishes it from sibling verification tools by domain and method.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives an implicit usage condition by requiring 2+ track points and naming the track-point domain. It does not state when to choose this over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites beyond the point count.

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