Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Anomaly Tracker MCP

Anomaly Tracker MCP

by forgemeshlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

squawk_alerts

Identify live global aviation emergencies by monitoring squawk codes 7700, 7600, and 7500 via OpenSky Network, returning source status and coverage notes.

Instructions

Best-effort live global sweep of active aviation emergency squawk codes via OpenSky Network. Returns aircraft currently squawking 7700, 7600, or 7500 with source status and coverage notes. Costs $0.02 USDC on Base mainnet.

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": "squawk_alerts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Best-effort' indicating non-guaranteed results, and 'source status and coverage notes' hinting at limitations. However, it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or behavior on empty results.

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?

Two sentences: first states the core action and source, second details return content and cost. No wasted words, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's return (aircraft with squawk codes, source status, coverage notes) and cost. It could be more explicit about return format but is sufficient for a simple read tool.

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 (schema coverage 100% trivially). The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and return content, compensating for the lack of parameters.

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 the tool performs a 'Best-effort live global sweep of active aviation emergency squawk codes' and specifies the exact codes (7700, 7600, 7500). It distinguishes from sibling tools like flight_scan by focusing solely on emergency squawks.

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 fetching emergency squawk data but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are 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