Skip to main content
Glama
noodlemctwoodle

uk-drone-airspace-mcp

by noodlemctwoodle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Check airspace along a route or area

check_route
Read-only

Check a UK drone route or area for permanent airspace restrictions, returning the zones crossed and the distance at which each is first entered.

Instructions

Check permanent airspace restrictions along a drone route or across an area. Give either waypoints (at least two; each a [lon, lat] pair or a place name) or an area (bbox [west, south, east, north] or a GeoJSON Polygon). Returns the zones crossed, deduplicated, with the distance along the route at which each is first entered. Place-name waypoints are geocoded; ambiguous names are returned for you to resolve. For ground elevation along the route call check_terrain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNoArea to check instead of a route: { bbox: [w, s, e, n] } or a GeoJSON Polygon.
formatNotext for a readable report (default), json for structured output, brief for two or three spoken-friendly sentences (use in voice conversations).text
waypointsNoOrdered route points: [lon, lat] pairs or place names.
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the return shape (zones crossed, deduplicated, first-entry distance) and the geocoding behavior, including that ambiguous place names are returned for the agent to resolve. It also scopes itself to 'permanent' restrictions, an important behavioral boundary. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words: purpose, input requirements, and output/alternative behavior. It front-loads the most decision-relevant information and keeps the input format summary tight.

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?

For a read-only tool with four parameters, no output schema, and rich structured parameter descriptions, the description provides what is missing: accepted input forms, geocoding edge behavior, the deduplicated return value, and a pointer to check_terrain. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is a 3. The description adds practical meaning by explaining that place-name waypoints are geocoded and that ambiguous names are surfaced for resolution, plus the 'at least two' constraint. It does not duplicate schema field details, and the meaning it adds is genuinely useful.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check permanent airspace restrictions along a drone route or across an area.' This immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like check_terrain (elevation) and communicates the route/area scope. It is not a tautology and an agent can tell what it does 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage instructions: provide at least two waypoints or an area, with accepted formats for each. It also names an alternative for a different need ('For ground elevation along the route call check_terrain'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other relevant siblings such as check_notams or check_location, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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