Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
iNAV MCP Server

iNAV MCP Server

by starlordz12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

board_info

Retrieve flight-controller identity details including firmware version, board name, API version, and detected sensors over MSP for iNAV fixed-wing diagnostics.

Instructions

Read flight-controller identity over MSP.

Returns: FC variant (e.g. 'INAV'), firmware version, board/target name, API version, build date/time/git revision, and sensors detected.

Requires an active connection (call connect first).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "board_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.5

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Read') and lists what it returns, implying no side effects. It also discloses the need for an active connection, which is important behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence summary, a clear bullet-like list of return values, and a critical usage prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of parameters, the description is nearly complete. It covers what is returned and the necessary connection prerequisite. A return format or typical usage example would add polish but isn't strictly required for an agent 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool will do and what data it returns, compensating for the absence of a parameter schema.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('flight-controller identity over MSP'). It enumerates the returned data (variant, firmware version, board name, etc.), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_status or read_sensors.

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 explicitly says 'Requires an active connection (call connect first)', which is a clear prerequisite and guides usage order. It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear and practical for an agent.

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