Skip to main content
Glama
dhhuston

APRS.fi MCP Server

by dhhuston

validate_aprs_key

Verify APRS.fi API key validity to ensure access to ham radio position tracking and balloon chase data.

Instructions

Test if an APRS.fi API key is valid

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiKeyYesAPRS.fi API key to validate

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that validates an APRS.fi API key by performing a test API call to check if it returns 'ok'.
    async validateApiKey(apiKey: string): Promise<boolean> {
      if (!apiKey) {
        return false;
      }
    
      try {
        const params = new URLSearchParams({
          name: 'TEST',
          what: 'loc',
          apikey: apiKey,
          format: 'json'
        });
    
        const response = await fetch(`${this.baseUrl}?${params}`);
        
        if (!response.ok) {
          return false;
        }
    
        const data: APRSResponse = await response.json();
        
        return data.result === 'ok';
        
      } catch {
        return false;
      }
    }
  • MCP tool dispatcher case that invokes the validateApiKey method and formats the response.
    case 'validate_aprs_key':
      const isValid = await this.aprsService.validateApiKey(
        args.apiKey as string
      );
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify({ valid: isValid }, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
  • Tool registration including name, description, and input schema definition.
    {
      name: 'validate_aprs_key',
      description: 'Test if an APRS.fi API key is valid',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          apiKey: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'APRS.fi API key to validate',
          },
        },
        required: ['apiKey'],
      },
    },
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool tests API key validity but doesn't describe what 'valid' means (e.g., authentication success, rate limit status), what happens on failure, or any side effects (e.g., logging, rate limiting). For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. For a validation tool, more information on what constitutes validity and potential outcomes would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'apiKey' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format, examples, validation criteria). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('APRS.fi API key'), and it specifies the action ('validate'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., get_aprs_history, get_aprs_position), which are likely read operations rather than validation tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an API key), when validation is required, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_aprs_history. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dhhuston/APRSFI-MCP-SERVER'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server