FlightFinder Aviation Safety Data

search_accidents

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the merged aviation-accident corpus (80+ official agencies, occurrence-level dedup). Filters: aircraft family slug (e.g. "boeing-737"), ISO alpha-2 country, occurrence type, operator substring, date range (from/to as YYYY-MM-DD), and fatal-only. Returns a page of occurrences with source-attribution links and a next_cursor for pagination.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	latest date, YYYY-MM-DD
`from`	No	earliest date, YYYY-MM-DD
`type`	No	occurrence type code
`fatal`	No	only fatal occurrences
`limit`	No	occurrences per page, 1-100
`cursor`	No	next_cursor from a previous call
`family`	No	aircraft family slug, e.g. "boeing-737"
`country`	No	ISO 3166 alpha-2 code, e.g. "US"
`operator`	No	operator name substring

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	one page of occurrences
`next_cursor`	No	pass back as cursor for the next page; absent on the last page

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds value by explaining the merged and deduplicated corpus, source-attribution links, and pagination cursor. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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-load the purpose, then list filters, then state the return shape. There is no filler and no unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description conveys corpus provenance, filtering capability, result shape, and pagination mechanism. An agent has enough to decide to call it and understand paging without opening any sibling 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?

The input schema already describes every parameter with formats, defaults, bounds, and examples, giving 100% coverage. The description's filter list summarizes the schema but adds no new meaning or syntax beyond it, so the baseline 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the merged aviation-accident corpus...' It adds distinguishing scope ('80+ official agencies, occurrence-level dedup') and names concrete filters, clearly separating it from sibling get_accident/get_narrative style tools.

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 establishes clear context: it is the list/search entry point across the merged corpus, with filters and pagination. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_accident for a single record or get_narrative for narrative text, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All FlightFinder Aviation Safety Data tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource or dataset: accidents, narratives, sources, airport references, and the three FAA summary datasets. Even the get/search accident pair is clearly split by retrieve-by-ID versus filtered-search, so an agent should not struggle to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use snake_case and are readable, with noun-style dataset tools like wildlife_strikes and laser_incidents alongside verb-prefixed actions like search_accidents and list_sources. This is a minor deviation from a strict verb_noun convention, but it remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is appropriate for a safety-data server that spans an accident corpus, narratives, source metadata, airport lookups, and multiple FAA datasets. Each tool earns its place and there is no obvious bloat or thinness.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers accident search/retrieval, narrative access, source metadata, airport resolution, and three FAA summary datasets. Notable gaps are the lack of occurrence-level retrieval for drone/laser/wildlife events and no explicit slug/autocomplete endpoint for aircraft families, but agents can usually work around these.

Resources

Need Help?