iNAV MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

configure_gps

Enable GPS and set receiver provider with optional SBAS mode on iNAV flight controllers. Apply settings with confirm, or use dry-run to test without saving.

Instructions

Enable the GPS feature and set the receiver provider / SBAS (atomic CLI write).

Gates: connected, not armed, auto-backup. After applying, give the GPS time to acquire satellites and check read_gps().

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": "configure_gps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`sbas`	No
`confirm`	No
`provider`	No	UBLOX

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.5Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is an 'atomic CLI write', that confirm='True to apply (save+reboot)', and 'Dry-run otherwise.' It also mentions 'auto-backup' and that the FC validates the provider. This gives significant behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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, using a single purpose line, a compact arg list, and a gates line. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, parameters, usage constraints (gates), and post-application guidance. Given there is no output schema, it appropriately focuses on the action's behavior and follow-up. It's complete for a configuration tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does so for each: provider with examples, sbas with options and optionality, and confirm with behavior. This exceeds what the schema provides.

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 'Enable the GPS feature and set the receiver provider / SBAS (atomic CLI write).' This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like read_gps and other configuration tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists explicit gates: 'connected, not armed, auto-backup.' This tells the agent when the tool can be used and prerequisites. It also advises 'After applying, give the GPS time to acquire satellites and check read_gps().' This provides clear post-conditions and a follow-up action, though it doesn't name alternative configuration tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.