Skip to main content
Glama
noodlemctwoodle

uk-drone-airspace-mcp

by noodlemctwoodle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Look up an aerodrome FRZ

get_aerodrome_zone
Read-only

Find a UK aerodrome's flight restriction zone by name or ICAO code. Get centre, radius, vertical limits, and contact info to plan compliant drone flights.

Instructions

Look up a UK aerodrome's flight restriction zone (FRZ) by name or ICAO code, e.g. "Bristol" or "EGGD". Returns the zone centre, approximate radius, bounding box, vertical limits and contact, optionally with the GeoJSON geometry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNotext for a readable report (default), json for structured output, brief for two or three spoken-friendly sentences (use in voice conversations).text
aerodromeYesAerodrome name or four-letter ICAO code (UK codes start with EG).
include_geojsonNoInclude the full zone geometry as GeoJSON.

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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by enumerating the returned data: zone centre, approximate radius, bounding box, vertical limits, and contact, plus optional GeoJSON geometry. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and for a read-only lookup this is strong disclosure.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the operation and scope, then summarizes the return content and the optional output format. The example is compact and directly useful.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and clarifies the optional geometry. Combined with the detailed input schema and readOnlyHint, an agent has what it needs to call the tool correctly. A minor gap is the lack of explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 three parameters. The description contributes a useful example ('Bristol' or 'EGGD') and mentions the optional GeoJSON output, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema detail.

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: 'Look up a UK aerodrome's flight restriction zone (FRZ)' and clearly states the accepted inputs, name or ICAO code. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools that cover NOTAMs, drone rules, weather, and other aviation lookups.

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?

The context is clear: this tool is for retrieving an aerodrome's FRZ data. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as check_notams or check_drone_rules, nor does it give any exclusions. The usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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