Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Betaflight MCP

Betaflight MCP

by bvandevliet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_pid_process_denom

Reads the PID loop rate divisor relative to gyro rate. Determines how often PID runs per gyro sample for tuning.

Instructions

Get pid_process_denom: PID loop rate divisor relative to gyro rate. 1 = PID runs every gyro sample. For 8kHz gyro with denom=2 → 4kHz PID rate. Target: BMI270 → 3.2kHz (tune with denom accordingly); ICM-42688P/MPU-6000 → 8kHz. [UINT8, default: 1]

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_pid_process_denom"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0-alpha

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the parameter's effect (divisor relative to gyro rate), gives calculation examples, and notes target values. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'get' implies it. Overall, sufficient transparency for a simple getter.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the definition, then providing examples and target information. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides complete context: what the divisor is, how to interpret values, and practical tuning guidance. No gaps identified.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to add parameter details. However, it provides context about the parameter's meaning and default value, which is useful.

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 defines the tool as getting the PID loop rate divisor, provides concrete examples (denom=2 for 4kHz PID rate), and mentions target gyro rates for specific sensors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools through the specific parameter name and context.

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 usage for reading the current PID rate divisor but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_imu_process_denom or the corresponding setter. No guidance on prerequisites or preferred scenarios.

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