SiteCheck Trade & Energy

Active FAA NOTAMs for a US airport or facility

logistics_airspace_notam_feed

Read-only

Active FAA NOTAMs (Notices to Air Missions) for a US airport or facility from the FAA's public NOTAM Search: NOTAM number, type (aerodrome, procedure, obstruction, airspace...), effective from/to times in UTC, permanent or estimated end, ICAO text and plain-language text, plus counts by type. US (FAA) locations only; 30 NOTAMs per page; not for flight planning. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "location": "<location>"
    },
    "name": "logistics_airspace_notam_feed"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page of 30, 1 to 20 (default 1)
`type`	No	Optional filter on the NOTAM type, e.g. aerodrome, procedure, obstruction, airspace
`location`	Yes	ICAO or FAA location id, e.g. KJFK, JFK, KORD, ZNY

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds context that structured fields cannot: a metered price ($0.002 USDC per successful call), the x402 payment rails (Base, Solana, Arc), and a no-charge-on-failure billing rule — critical for an agent deciding whether to spend. It also discloses result-window behavior (30 NOTAMs per page) and the operational caveat 'not for flight planning'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and source are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by record contents, then constraints and price — a sensible priority order. The enumerated field list is long but each item is substantive; only the return-field enumeration is arguably redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

For a read-only, single-required-parameter lookup with a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly: scope, geography, page size, exclusions, and the paid-call cost model. Return-value explanation is unnecessary here because an output schema is present, so nothing material is missing.

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 all three parameters (location, type, page) are already documented with examples in the schema itself. The description reinforces the location constraint ('ICAO or FAA', 'US only') and type vocabulary, and confirms the 30-per-page granularity, but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema already states. 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Active FAA NOTAMs for a US airport or facility'), names the upstream source (FAA public NOTAM Search), and enumerates what each record contains (number, type, effective times, ICAO and plain-language text, counts). It also scopes it geographically ('US (FAA) locations only'), which no sibling tool in this catalog covers, so an agent can separate it from adjacent logistics entries like logistics_airport_iata_icao without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit negative guidance is given: 'US (FAA) locations only' and 'not for flight planning', which steers an agent away from using this for operational flight dispatch or non-US airspace. The gap is that no alternative tool is named for either excluded case (e.g. where to go for international NOTAMs or for flight-planning-grade data), so the routing is only half-complete.

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

All SiteCheck Trade & Energy 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?