Retrieve live aircraft positions, altitudes, and velocities from OpenSky Network, optionally filtered by bounding box or ICAO24 transponder address.
Get live aircraft states (position, altitude, velocity) from OpenSky Network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lamax | No | Bounding box max latitude. | |
| lamin | No | Bounding box min latitude. | |
| lomax | No | Bounding box max longitude. | |
| lomin | No | Bounding box min longitude. | |
| icao24 | No | Filter by ICAO24 transponder address. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Live' hints at real-time data, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, OpenSky's anonymous-user rate limits, authentication needs, or whether results are a snapshot vs. a stream.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero padding; only the missing sibling differentiation keeps it from being ideal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only behavioral source, yet it omits rate limits, auth context, and return-shape guidance for a tool with five optional filter parameters. It is adequate but leaves real gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and each of the five optional parameters is documented in the schema itself, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('live aircraft states') with parenthetical detail on what state fields are returned, and the data source. However, it never distinguishes itself from its sibling opensky_flights, which an agent would otherwise confuse it with.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs. opensky_flights or any alternative. Nothing states that the bounding-box params are optional filters or under what conditions a caller should supply them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.