us_airport_disruptionsEvery current FAA disruption in US airspace (ground stops, ground delay programs, delays, closures) ranked by severity. Price: $0.003 USDC per call via x402 (Base); the first 5 calls per day per client are free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| minSeverity | No | Only events with severity >= this. Default 2. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| events | Yes | ||
| source | No | ||
| fetchedAt | No | ||
| faaUpdateTime | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "events": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "airport": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "detail": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "severity": {
+ "maximum": 5,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "enum": [
+ "ground_stop",
+ "ground_delay_program",
+ "arrival_delay",
+ "departure_delay",
+ "closure",
+ "airspace_flow_program",
+ "other"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "airport",
+ "type",
+ "severity"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "faaUpdateTime": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "fetchedAt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "events"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool is paid via x402 at $0.003 USDC per call on Base, with the first 5 calls per day per client free. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads coverage, event types, and ranking; the second adds the payment model. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter schema, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, event categories, ranking, and pricing. The main missing element is explicit guidance on how this tool differs from its siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single optional minSeverity parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including its range and default. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the resource: every current FAA disruption in US airspace, enumerates event types (ground stops, ground delay programs, delays, closures), and notes ranking by severity. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings airport_status or tfr_corridor.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus airport_status or tfr_corridor, nor any when-not or prerequisite conditions. Usage is only implied by the scope of current disruptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.