Flight_get_airport
Read-only
Airport row by IATA/ICAO code (id). Returns null if not found.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
FlightDB
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Changed1 schema field changed
- changed
Output schema / properties / data / anyOfPrevious value: -[ - { - "additionalProperties": {}, - "properties": { - "continent": { - "type": "string" - }, - "elevation_ft": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "number" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ] - }, - "gps_code": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ] - }, - "home_link": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ] - }, - "iata_code": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ] - }, - "id": { - "type": "string" - }, - "ident": { - "type": "string" - }, - "iso_country": { - "type": "string" - }, - "iso_region": { - "type": "string" - }, - "keywords": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ] - }, - "latitude": { - "type": "number" - }, - "local_code": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ] - }, - "longitude": { - "type": "number" - }, - "municipality": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ] - }, - "name": { - "type": "string" - }, - "numericId": { - "type": "number" - }, - "scheduled_service": { - "type": "string" - }, - "timezone": { - "type": "string" - }, - "type": { - "type": "string" - }, - "wikipedia_link": { - "anyOf": [ - { - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } - ] - } - }, - "required": [ - "id", - "numericId", - "ident", - "type", - "name", - "latitude", - "longitude", - "elevation_ft", - "continent", - "iso_country", - "iso_region", - "municipality", - "scheduled_service", - "gps_code", - "iata_code", - "local_code", - "home_link", - "wikipedia_link", - "keywords", - "timezone" - ], - "type": "object" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } -]New value: +[ + { + "additionalProperties": {}, + "properties": { + "continent": { + "type": "string" + }, + "elevation_ft": { + "type": [ + "number", + "null" + ] + }, + "gps_code": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "home_link": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "iata_code": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "id": { + "type": "string" + }, + "ident": { + "type": "string" + }, + "iso_country": { + "type": "string" + }, + "iso_region": { + "type": "string" + }, + "keywords": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "latitude": { + "type": "number" + }, + "local_code": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "longitude": { + "type": "number" + }, + "municipality": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "name": { + "type": "string" + }, + "numericId": { + "type": "number" + }, + "scheduled_service": { + "type": "string" + }, + "timezone": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": { + "type": "string" + }, + "wikipedia_link": { + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + } + }, + "required": [ + "id", + "numericId", + "ident", + "type", + "name", + "latitude", + "longitude", + "elevation_ft", + "continent", + "iso_country", + "iso_region", + "municipality", + "scheduled_service", + "gps_code", + "iata_code", + "local_code", + "home_link", + "wikipedia_link", + "keywords", + "timezone" + ], + "type": "object" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } +]
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the description only needs to add behavior — and it does, disclosing that a miss returns null rather than raising an error. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey; it omits only cache/consistency or output-shape detail, which the output schema covers.
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?
One front-loaded sentence identifies the resource and key, a second sentence delivers the only surprising behavior (null on miss). Zero filler for a single-parameter lookup.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary and the null-on-miss note is a sufficient bonus. The only meaningful omission for a tool in this crowded sibling set is a pointer to Flight_search_airports for code-unknown cases.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: the single 'code' argument accepts either IATA or ICAO format and is referred to as 'id' elsewhere. Combined with the schema's ^[A-Z0-9]{3,4}$ pattern, an agent can construct a valid call without guessing.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — retrieve an airport row by IATA/ICAO code — which is precise enough to distinguish it from aggregate siblings like Flight_airport_stats or Flight_flights_by_country. It does not explicitly contrast with Flight_search_airports, the closest lookup sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is an exact-key lookup rather than a search, but the description never says when to prefer it over Flight_search_airports or what to do when the exact code is unknown. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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.