Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
px4-flight-debugger

px4-flight-debugger

by blar-tw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

log_params

Retrieves PX4 parameter values as logged at boot and any changes made during a flight, filtered by exact names or glob patterns, to debug configuration-related flight issues.

Instructions

Parameter values as logged at boot, and any changed during the log.

Tool call template

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": "log_params"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
logNopath, '16_21_32.ulg', '2026-10-20/16_21_32', 'latest' or 'latest-N'latest
namesNoexact parameter names
patternNoglob over names, e.g. 'EKF2_*' or '*_DLL_*'

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 data scope (boot values and changes) but says nothing about permissions, read/write nature, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior; it only minimally describes what is returned.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the core data scope. It is efficient but grammatically fragmentary, which slightly weakens structure and clarity.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema has full description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameter formats or return values. Still, it omits usage guidance and sibling differentiation, leaving clear gaps for a tool that shares a crowded namespace.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents log, names, and pattern parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'Parameter values,' making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description identifies the resource and temporal scope: parameter values logged at boot plus values changed during the log. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_logs, log_summary, or log_messages.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states what data is available but not the conditions or contexts that select this tool over the many sibling log-analysis tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools