Skip to main content
Glama

LOWLEVEL · 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 LOWLEVEL: 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 LOWLEVEL'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. LOWLEVEL 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavioral traits: data is community-sourced not official, difficulty is stale once checked and never recalculated, and a spot's presence says nothing about today's airspace. These caveats add real safety-relevant context.

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 bilingual text is longer than typical, but nearly every sentence adds substance: purpose, output fields, data provenance, freshness limitations, and sibling routing. The core action is front-loaded and the repeated official-vs-community caveat earns its place given the safety context.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only community lookup with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers what is returned, where the data comes from, why the data may be outdated, and which sibling tool covers official requirements. The only minor omission is radius_km detail, which is a small gap against otherwise comprehensive coverage.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description only mentions 'near a coordinate' without explaining coordinate format, units, or the optional radius_km parameter. While lat/lon are self-evident from the schema titles, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics for radius_km.

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 names a specific action ('Busca ... puntos de vuelo cerca de una coordenada'), the exact resource (LOWLEVEL pilot community), and the result fields (name, coordinate, drone type, difficulty, check date). It also differentiates itself from the regulatory sibling flight_requirements by explicitly stating it is unofficial community knowledge.

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?

The description clearly states when this tool is relevant (community flying spots) and when it is not (official regulation or current airspace). It explicitly directs the user to flight_requirements for paperwork and names ENAIRE/AESA as final authorities, which is strong alternative routing.

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