GoTravelX Flight Status

Get flight status

get_flight_status

Destructive

Look up a flight for a GoTravelX-supported carrier using its carrier-prefixed number and local departure date. Supports the carriers listed on flightdata.online/mcp; Delta (DL) is not supported. A valid supported-carrier lookup spends one result set, even if the flight is not found. Unsupported carriers are rejected without a charge.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "flight": "<flight>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "get_flight_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Local scheduled departure date, YYYY-MM-DD.
`flight`	Yes	Carrier-prefixed flight designator, for example UA123, EW7765, or 2F35. A carrier prefix is required.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`found`	Yes
`flight`	Yes
`resultSetsRemaining`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which is unusual for a lookup, and the description supplies the missing rationale: a valid supported-carrier lookup 'spends one result set' even on a miss, while unsupported carriers are rejected without charge. That quota/consumption disclosure is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but it never explains why a read-style lookup is flagged destructive or what a 'result set' costs in practice.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then eligibility, then billing behavior. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the two things an agent could get wrong: carrier eligibility and quota consumption. It could say more about what happens on a not-found result, but the essentials are present.

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 both parameters are already documented with format and examples. The description restates the carrier-prefix requirement and local-date semantics without adding syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up a flight') plus the exact inputs that identify it (carrier-prefixed number, local departure date). The carrier-support scope and the Delta exclusion make it unambiguous which lookups this tool serves.

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?

Gives clear eligibility context: only GoTravelX-supported carriers, with the carrier list pointed to at flightdata.online/mcp and Delta explicitly excluded. It does not compare against sibling tools, but the siblings (account balance/profile) are unrelated enough that no routing guidance is needed.

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

All GoTravelX Flight Status tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?