Skip to main content
Glama

aviation-weather-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Find Aviation Weather Stations

aviation_find_stations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve an airport or weather reporting station by ICAO identifier, or discover stations within a bounding box or US state. Returns all identifier variants (ICAO/IATA/FAA), coordinates, elevation, and available data types (METAR, TAF, SYNOP, etc.). Station IDs must be 4-letter ICAO format (e.g., KSEA, KJFK). At least one of station_ids, bbox, or state is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bboxNoGeographic bounding box for spatial queries.
stateNoTwo-letter USPS code for one of the 50 US states or DC (e.g., "WA") to list all stations in that jurisdiction. US territories are not supported — use bbox for those.
station_idsNoOne or more 4-letter ICAO station IDs (e.g., KSEA, KJFK). The upstream API only accepts ICAO format — 3-letter IATA codes (e.g., SEA) will return no results. Use bbox or state to discover ICAO IDs by location.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
capNoThe upstream row maximum that was applied to the draw. Present only on a truncated result.
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
shownNoStations in this result, counted after any client-side state filter.
noticeNoGuidance naming the lever that narrows the draw. Present only on a truncated result.
stationsNoMatching stations.
truncatedNoTrue when the upstream draw hit the AWC row cap, so stations inside the search area are missing from this result. False affirms the area was drawn in full, which a count alone cannot establish.
upstreamRowsNoRows AWC returned before the client-side state filter ran. Present only on a truncated state query the filter then narrowed, where the post-filter count sits below the cap and so cannot reveal the truncation on its own.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the ICAO format constraint (with example), the fact that it returns multiple identifier variants and data types, and the requirement of at least one parameter. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches understanding.

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 compact—three sentences—with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then return info, then constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure guides the agent from understanding to invocation.

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 the tool has 3 parameters (one nested object), an output schema, and supportive annotations, the description is complete for agent use. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, input constraints, and invocation requirements. Nothing essential is missing, and the output schema handles return-value details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds the crucial 'at least one required' constraint, which is not present in the schema (no required fields). It also reinforces the ICAO format and hints at using bbox/state to discover IDs. This adds value beyond the schema, though some redundant overlap exists.

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 uses specific verbs ('Resolve', 'discover') and a clear resource (aviation weather stations). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like aviation_get_metar/aviation_get_taf, which retrieve specific data types, whereas this tool resolves/discover station metadata. The return contents (identifier variants, coordinates, elevation, data types) are stated explicitly.

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 states the required condition ('At least one of station_ids, bbox, or state is required') and mentions the two discovery modes (bbox or state). It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on station lookup rather than data retrieval, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when NOT to use it. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All aviation-weather-mcp-server toolsInspect
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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource type: stations, advisories, METARs, PIREPs, and TAFs. There is no overlap in purpose; an agent can unambiguously choose the right tool for a specific weather data need.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent `aviation_` prefix with a predictable verb-noun pattern (`find_stations`, `get_metar`, etc.). The naming convention is uniform and immediately communicates the tool's function.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for aviation weather retrieval. Each tool covers a core data type without redundancy, and the count is within the ideal range for a focused MCP server.

Completeness4/5

The set covers primary aviation weather products (METAR, TAF, PIREP, SIGMET) and station lookup. Minor gaps exist such as AIRMET (explicitly rejected) and lack of other products like winds aloft, but the core functionality is coherent and usable without dead ends.

Resources