FlightDB

Flight_airport_visits

Read-only

Per-airport visit and stay aggregates by year for one aircraft id.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`aircraftId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`years`	Yes
`airports`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / airports / items / properties / airportName / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / airports / items / properties / airportName / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / airports / items / properties / city / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / airports / items / properties / city / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / airports / items / properties / country / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / airports / items / properties / country / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the aggregation shape (per-airport, per-year visit and stay buckets), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about coverage period, pagination, or what happens for an aircraft with no visits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification — the brevity is not paired with the disambiguation an agent needs among 15 siblings.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 explained, but for a tool with 15 sibling tools the description leaves the agent unable to tell this apart from Flight_airport_stats or Flight_visit_history. The required id parameter is also left under-explained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only echoes the parameter name ('one aircraft id') without saying where to obtain a valid id (e.g. Flight_list_aircraft / Flight_get_aircraft_from_list) or what happens with an unknown id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource (per-airport visit and stay aggregates) with a clear grouping (by year) and filter (one aircraft id). It is understandable on its own, but it does nothing to distinguish it from near-neighbours like Flight_airport_stats or Flight_visit_history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many airport/visit siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the noun phrase.

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

All FlightDB 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.