Skip to main content
Glama
noodlemctwoodle

uk-drone-airspace-mcp

by noodlemctwoodle
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Data status and attribution

get_data_status
Read-only

Check the data powering this drone airspace server: airspace pack version, AIRAC dates, source fetch times and licences, NOTAM cache age, geocoding providers, runtime details, and required attributions.

Instructions

Report the data behind this server: airspace pack version and AIRAC effective dates, when each source was fetched and its licence, NOTAM bulletin cache age, geocoding providers available, runtime details, and the attribution strings that must be shown to users.

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

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Report' aligns with that. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by detailing what the report covers (licences, attribution strings that must be shown to users, cache age), which informs the agent of expected content and any compliance obligations. No contradiction.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Report the data behind this server') and then efficiently lists all key elements without redundancy. Every clause adds substance; no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates well by listing the major report categories. It does not specify the exact structure or return format, but the 'format' parameter controls that, and the listed items give the agent a solid expectation. Some minor gaps exist, such as error handling or size limits, but these are low-risk for a read-only status tool.

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 100% and the single parameter 'format' is fully documented with enum descriptions (text, json, brief) and a default. The tool description does not add any parameter-level information, but the schema already carries the full semantic burden, so a 3 baseline 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 states a clear, specific action: 'Report the data behind this server' and enumerates concrete content (airspace pack version, AIRAC dates, source fetch times, licences, NOTAM cache age, geocoding providers, runtime details, attribution strings). This distinguishes it functionally from siblings like check_weather or geocode, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage for data provenance and attribution queries but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions. The 'brief' format hint for voice conversations is a light usage clue, but overall guidance is only implied, not 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