Skip to main content
Glama
noodlemctwoodle

uk-drone-airspace-mcp

by noodlemctwoodle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Check airspace at a location

check_location
Read-only

Enter a UK place name, postcode, or coordinates to get a drone-flyability verdict with permanent airspace zones, vertical limits, contact info, and landowner rules. Excludes NOTAMs.

Instructions

Check permanent UK airspace restrictions at a single point for drone flying. Give a place name or postcode, or lat/lon. Returns a one-line verdict, then every zone containing the point (aerodrome FRZ, prohibited, restricted, danger, other) with vertical limits, activation notes and contact, and any landowner rule at the point. Does not include NOTAMs; call check_notams for temporary restrictions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoLatitude in decimal degrees (WGS84).
lonNoLongitude in decimal degrees (WGS84), negative west of Greenwich.
placeNoPlace name, postcode or landmark in the UK, e.g. "Tyndale Monument", "BS1 6QF", "Durdle Door". Use lat/lon instead if you already have coordinates.
formatNotext for a readable report (default), json for structured output, brief for two or three spoken-friendly sentences (use in voice conversations).text
include_above_120mNoAlso list zones whose lower limit is above 400 ft AGL and so do not affect flying below 120 m.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Previous value: -"text for a readable report (default), json for structured output."New value: +"text for a readable report (default), json for structured output, brief for two or three spoken-friendly sentences (use in voice conversations)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "text",
-  "json"
-]New value: +[
+  "text",
+  "json",
+  "brief"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing what the response contains (one-line verdict, zones with vertical limits, activation notes, contact, landowner rule) and explicitly excluding temporary restrictions. It does not go into rate limits or data source caveats, but the core behavior is well-disclosed.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, input method, output content, and exclusion with routing to the correct sibling. It opens with the primary purpose and ends with the key non-goal, with no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return value structure. All parameters are documented in the schema, annotations cover side effects, and the sibling tool route is provided. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds a small amount of guidance (place name or postcode, or lat/lon) and signals that the point is the subject of the check, but it does not substantially expand on the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: check permanent UK airspace restrictions at a single point for drone flying. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_notams by stating what it does not cover, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit input guidance ('Give a place name or postcode, or lat/lon') and states the exclusion condition ('Does not include NOTAMs') with the alternative tool to call instead ('call check_notams for temporary restrictions'). This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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