Skip to main content
Glama
malonestar

gov-data-mcp

by malonestar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

faa-drone-airspace-checker

Check FAA drone airspace for any latitude/longitude: get LAANC ceilings, controlled airspace, TFRs, prohibited areas, and no-fly verdicts in one batch.

Instructions

FAA Drone Airspace Checker - Batch LAANC & No-Fly Verdicts. Batch lat/lon to FAA UAS airspace verdicts at $0.02 per check: LAANC ceilings AND whether LAANC is actually offered, charted Class B/C/D/E surface areas, prohibited areas, national-defense TFR areas, special use airspace, NSUFR, stadium TFRs. Never reads clear when a layer did not answer. Reads live from the official government source. Call describe-gov-data-tool (free) for a verified example input. COST AND SIDE EFFECTS: read-only with respect to the government source — it never writes to any external system — but each call starts a metered run on YOUR Apify account, billed $0.02 per result ($20 per 1,000). Lower on paid Apify plans, down to $6.00 per 1,000. Nothing is charged when a run fails. Store page: https://apify.com/malonestar/faa-drone-airspace-checker

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
layersNoWhich FAA airspace layers to check each point against. Defaults to all eight. laanc_grid = UAS Facility Map LAANC ceilings; class_airspace = charted Class A/B/C/D/E airspace (ALWAYS queried - it is the check that distinguishes uncontrolled airspace from controlled airspace that has no LAANC grid, so excluding it would force every verdict to INCONCLUSIVE); prohibited_areas = P-areas like P-56; national_defense_tfr = national defense airspace TFR areas; special_use_airspace = Restricted/MOA/Alert/Warning/Danger areas; part_time_nsufr = part-time national security UAS flight restrictions; stadiums = stadium game-day TFR proximity (3 NM); recreational_flyer_sites = FAA-listed fixed flying sites. Example: ["laanc_grid","class_airspace","prohibited_areas","national_defense_tfr","special_use_airspace","part_time_nsufr","stadiums","recreational_flyer_sites"].
pointsYesLocations to check, in WGS84 decimal degrees. Each item is either an object like {"lat": 39.86, "lon": -104.67, "label": "Site A"} (label optional; latitude/longitude aliases accepted) or a "lat,lon" string like "39.86,-104.67". One result row is produced per point, and one Result event is charged per row. Example: [{"lat":39.86,"lon":-104.67,"label":"Denver Intl (KDEN) - Class B, LAANC ceiling 0 ft"},{"lat":40.8296,"lon":-73.9262,"label":"Yankee Stadium NYC - LAANC 300 ft + stadium TFR"},{"lat":42.1708,"lon":-72.6375,"label":"Westover ARB (KCEF) - Class D, LAANC NOT offered"},{"lat":38.9072,"lon":-101.05,"label":"Rural western Kansas - MOA overhead, floor 500 ft AGL"},{"lat":47.2,"lon":-108.6,"label":"Rura…(truncated).
maxPointsNoSafety cap on the number of points checked (and billed) in one run. Points beyond the cap are skipped with a warning. Applied by default if omitted: 500.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it explains the readOnlyHint=false semantics (a metered run is started on the caller's Apify account), the exact billing model ($0.02/result, $20 per 1,000, discounted on paid plans), and the failure guarantee ('nothing is charged when a run fails'). It also discloses a reliability trait ('never reads clear when a layer did not answer'). This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs before invoking a paid, non-idempotent tool, and it is consistent with the annotations rather than contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose and layer coverage are front-loaded, and the cost/side-effect block is clearly labeled. It runs long and repeats billing figures (per-check, per-1,000, plan discounts) plus a bare store URL, but each block still serves a distinct function.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and largely meets it by naming the verdict components (ceilings, offer status, prohibited/TFR/SUA/NSUFR layers) and promising no false 'clear' results. Layer-verdict structure and the exact result shape are still somewhat implied, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents layer semantics, point formats, and the maxPoints cap in detail. The description adds genuinely new meaning by tying parameters to cost ('$0.02 per check,' 'one Result event is charged per row'), which clarifies why points/maxPoints are economically significant.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Batch lat/lon to FAA UAS airspace verdicts,' and enumerates the exact determinations returned (LAANC ceilings and offer status, Class B/C/D/E, prohibited areas, TFRs, SUA, NSUFR, stadium TFRs). The domain specificity (FAA drone airspace) clearly separates it from the EPA/FEMA/HIFLD siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain (batch airspace checks for drone operations) and it usefully points to describe-gov-data-tool for a verified example input. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or any preconditions/exclusions, leaving the when-to-use decision to inference.

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