Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Betaflight MCP

Betaflight MCP

by bvandevliet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_blackbox_sample_rate

Retrieve the current blackbox sample rate setting, which defines the fraction of PID loop iterations logged for flight data analysis.

Instructions

Get blackbox_sample_rate: Fraction of PID loop iterations logged. With the default pid_process_denom = 1 (PID rate = gyro rate), at 8kHz: 1/8 → 1kHz, 1/4 → 2kHz. Finer rates = larger logs. [UINT8, default: 1/4]

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": "get_blackbox_sample_rate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0-alpha

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It explains that the value controls logging frequency and that finer rates increase log size, which is helpful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that it's a read-only operation with no side effects, though that is implied.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a compact example and default notation. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It defines the parameter, gives defaults, examples, and notes the trade-off. It does not describe the return type explicitly, but that is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. It compensates by explaining the value's meaning, default ('1/4'), and providing examples of rate calculations. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it retrieves the blackbox_sample_rate parameter, defines it as 'Fraction of PID loop iterations logged', and provides examples to illustrate. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'set_blackbox_sample_rate' by being a getter.

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?

The description implies its use for reading the current sample rate setting, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like 'set_blackbox_sample_rate' or other getters. No guidance on when not to use is provided.

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