Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
iNAV MCP Server

iNAV MCP Server

by starlordz12
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

calibrate_magnetometer

Initiate magnetometer calibration on iNAV. Rotate the aircraft 360° around all three axes within 30 seconds; iNAV saves the result automatically.

Instructions

Calibrate the compass (magnetometer). Only useful if a compass is installed.

Sends MSP_MAG_CALIBRATION; you then have ~30s to rotate the aircraft 360° around all three axes. iNAV saves the result automatically.

Gates: connected, not armed, confirm=True (dry-run otherwise).

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": "calibrate_magnetometer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.5

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains the protocol (MSP_MAG_CALIBRATION), the 30-second rotation requirement, automatic saving, and the dry-run behavior when confirm is not true. This is solid transparency for a simple calibration action.

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 structured in three short paragraphs: purpose, procedure, and gates. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 a single boolean parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, procedure, timing, result handling, and preconditions. It lacks details on possible errors or post-calibration verification, but those are not critical for this simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, confirm, is fully explained in the description: 'confirm=True (dry-run otherwise)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare definition and clarifies the exact behavioral difference.

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 that the tool calibrates the compass/magnetometer, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling calibrate_accelerometer by explicitly naming the magnetometer and describing the rotation procedure.

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 provides explicit prerequisites: 'Only useful if a compass is installed' and gates: 'connected, not armed, confirm=True (dry-run otherwise)'. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling calibration tools, the conditions and dry-run behavior give clear guidance on when to use it.

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