Skip to main content
Glama
noodlemctwoodle

uk-drone-airspace-mcp

by noodlemctwoodle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Geocode a UK place

geocode
Read-only

Resolve a UK place name, postcode, or landmark into coordinates to disambiguate locations before checking airspace. Returns up to ten candidates with source and confidence.

Instructions

Resolve a UK place name, postcode or landmark to coordinates. Use it to disambiguate before running a check when a name could match several places. Returns up to ten candidates with source and confidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYesPlace name, postcode or landmark.
formatNotext for a readable report (default), json for structured output, brief for two or three spoken-friendly sentences (use in voice conversations).text

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that it returns 'up to ten candidates with source and confidence,' which signals that results may be ambiguous and includes provenance. No conflicting behavior is described.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core function, the second gives usage guidance, and the third describes the return shape. Every sentence earns its place and the most essential information is front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by describing the return value ('up to ten candidates with source and confidence'). It also covers the main trigger case and the query types. Minor gaps like coordinate system or how limit interacts with results are not critical for a read-only tool, so the definition is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by noting 'up to ten candidates,' which hints at the limit parameter, but it does not explain the format parameter or the query semantics beyond what the schema already states. It neither significantly boosts nor hurts parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a clear resource ('a UK place name, postcode or landmark'), and an outcome ('to coordinates'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by framing its role as a disambiguation step before checks, making its purpose distinct from the check-oriented sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use it to disambiguate before running a check when a name could match several places.' It does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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