Incheon Airport Transit MCP

by io.github.kimnchai

Server Details

Incheon Airport (ICN) transit: limo buses, internal shuttles, taxi queues, AREX train schedule.

Status: Healthy
Last Tested: 2026-07-30 18:31
Transport: Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client

Glama

MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.

Tool Definition Quality

A4.5/5.0

Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a distinct mode of transit (bus, shuttle real-time, shuttle schedule, taxi, train) with clear descriptions, leaving no ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent `airport_<transport_type>` pattern, with shuttle tools further differentiated by `_next` and `_schedule` suffixes, making them predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools covering bus, shuttle (real-time and schedule), taxi, and train, the count is well-scoped for an airport transit information server.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers all major transit modes to/from and within Incheon Airport, including real-time and schedule data, with no obvious gaps.

Available Tools

5 tools

airport_busA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

[인천공항 대중교통] 인천국제공항 ↔ 전국 공항버스 노선·시간표·요금·승차장.

데이터셋 갱신 60분. T1/T2 평일·주말 시간표 분리 제공. 버스 등급(일반/우등)·운수사 연락처 포함.

Args:
    region: 한글 권역명(서울/경기/인천/강원/충청/경상/전라) 또는 1~7 코드. 빈값=전체.
    search: 버스번호/운수사/정류장 키워드 부분일치 (예: "강남", "6009", "KAL").
    lang: "ko" (한글) 또는 "en" (영문 라벨 일부).

Returns:
    {count, area, items: [{busnumber, route, fare, busclass, cpname, terminal_first_last, route_info, ride_loc}]}

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`lang`	No	ko
`region`	No
`search`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

Tool Definition Quality

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds update frequency, timetable separation, and return structure details, providing full transparency beyond annotations.

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?

Concise with a main sentence and structured Args section. Slightly verbose in listing details but overall efficient and well-organized.

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 output schema and annotations, the description is complete: purpose, update frequency, parameter details, and return structure are all covered.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema has 0% per-parameter descriptions, but the description explains each parameter: region (Korean name or code 1-7, empty=all), search (partial match), lang (ko/en). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it provides airport bus routes, schedules, fares, and boarding locations for Incheon Airport to nationwide, distinguishing it from sibling tools like shuttle, taxi, and train.

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 gives context (dataset update every 60 minutes, separate weekday/weekend timetables) but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives vs. siblings. Purpose is clear enough for an AI to infer from tool name and sibling set.

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

airport_shuttle_nextA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

[인천공항 대중교통] 인천공항 무료 셔틀버스 다음 도착 예측 시간(분).

공항 내부 이동용 무료 셔틀 (T1 ↔ T2 ↔ AICC ↔ 화물청사역 등). 실시간 60분 갱신.

Args:
    stop: 정류장 한글명(예: "제1여객터미널", "인천영종소방서") 또는 10자리 stopId. 빈값=전체.
    route: 노선 한글명(예: "AICC행", "AICC순환") 또는 8자리 routeId. 빈값=전체.
    lang: "ko"/"en".

Returns:
    {count, items: [{stop_name, route_name, eta_minutes, ofr_time, ord, raw}]}

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`lang`	No	ko
`stop`	No
`route`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

Tool Definition Quality

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that data is real-time with 60-minute updates, and explains the return structure. This adds value beyond 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, output structure, and data freshness. For a simple read-only tool with no required parameters, this is nearly complete. Minor missing info (e.g., authentication) is not critical.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: stop (name or ID, empty for all), route (name or ID, empty for all), and lang. Examples are provided, helping the agent use them correctly.

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 clearly states the tool predicts the next arrival time of the free shuttle at Incheon Airport. It specifies the scope (inside airport, T1↔T2↔AICC↔cargo terminal) and distinguishes from sibling tools like airport_bus and airport_shuttle_schedule.

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 implies use for real-time arrival predictions of free shuttles, and sibling names help differentiate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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

airport_shuttle_scheduleA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

[인천공항 대중교통] 인천공항 무료 셔틀버스 시간표 (의미 단위 요약).

노선별 평일/휴일 첫차·막차·배차 간격·운행 편수 + 종점 출발 시각 전체 + 첫편의
정류장 순서별 통과 시각. 정류장×편수 raw row 노출 (수백~수천 건) 대신 사용자
관점에서 직접 의미 있는 단위로 압축.

데이터셋 갱신 60분. 참고: 현재 시간표 dataset 에는 'AICC행' (routeId 11100001,
11100006) 두 노선만 등록되어 있어 그 외 노선(AICC순환/T1행/T2행/T2직행/
화물청사역행/T1막차)을 필터하면 빈 결과가 정상. 도착 예측은
airport_shuttle_next 가 모든 노선 커버.

Args:
    route: 노선 한글명(예: "AICC행") 또는 8자리 routeId. 빈값=노선 목록만 요약.
    day: "weekday" (평일) / "holiday" (휴일) / "all" (전체, 기본).
    lang: "ko"/"en".

Returns:
    route 빈값 시: {count, routes: [{route_id, route_name, weekday_departures, holiday_departures}]}
    route 지정 시: {route_id, route_name, day_filter, by_day: {
        weekday/holiday: {
            day_type_kr, departure_count, first_departure, last_departure,
            interval_avg, all_departures: [HH:MM,...],
            first_trip_stops: [{stop_order, stop_name, time}, ...]
        }
    }}

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`day`	No	all
`lang`	No	ko
`route`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

Tool Definition Quality

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds dataset refresh interval (60 min), behavior for missing routes, and return format details, providing extra context without contradiction.

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?

Description is detailed but lengthy; it could be more concise. However, it is well-organized with clear sections and front-loaded summary.

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?

Covers all relevant aspects: behavior, limitations, relation to sibling tools, and return format. Output schema exists, so return value explanation is sufficient.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but description thoroughly explains each parameter ('route', 'day', 'lang') with examples and defaults, adding necessary meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it summarizes Incheon Airport free shuttle bus schedules, including first/last bus, intervals, and stop times. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting coverage and limitations.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly mentions that only two routes are in the dataset, and that arrival prediction is handled by 'airport_shuttle_next', guiding when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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

airport_taxiA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

[인천공항 대중교통] 인천공항 여객터미널 택시 출차 현황 (대기수·대기시간·승차장).

1분 단위 실시간. 지역별(서울/인천/경기/인터내셔널/우등/밴) 대기 택시 수와 대기시간.

Args:
    terminal: "T1" / "T2" / "P01" / "P03". 기본 T1.
    lang: "ko"/"en".

Returns:
    {terminal, status, update_time, regions: {서울/인천/경기/인터내셔널/우등/밴: {cnt, wait_time, stand}}}

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No		ko
`terminal`	No		T1

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

Tool Definition Quality

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions real-time updates (1-minute intervals) and specifies the returned data structure (terminal, status, update_time, regions). Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description complements without contradiction.

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?

The description is well-structured: a brief title line, a line about update frequency, then a clear Args section with parameter details, and a Returns section showing the output format. It is concise yet informative, though slightly verbose with the Korean formatting.

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 only 2 parameters (both with defaults), rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, update frequency, parameter semantics, and return structure. No significant gaps remain for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has no description coverage (0%), but the tool description provides explicit meanings and allowed values for both parameters: terminal can be 'T1', 'T2', 'P01', or 'P03' with default 'T1', and lang can be 'ko' or 'en'. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool returns taxi departure status at Incheon Airport passenger terminals, including waiting count, waiting time, and boarding area. The verb '조회' (inquiry) is implied, and the resource is unambiguously taxi-related. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like airport_bus, but the focus on taxi is clear.

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?

The description notes real-time updates (1-minute intervals) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like airport_bus or airport_train. Usage context is implied by the domain (taxi) but lacks when-not or alternative suggestions.

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

airport_trainA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

[인천공항 대중교통] 인천공항 공항철도 (AREX) 열차 운행 정보. D-3 ~ D+3 범위.

실시간 3분 갱신. 18개 역 (서울 ↔ 인천공항T2). 일반(Comm) 모든 역 정차,
직통(Dirc) 서울↔T1/T2 무정차.

기본 동작 — date 빈값(=오늘) 이면 현재 시각(KST) 이후 출발 열차만 시간순으로
정렬해 limit 개수만 반환 ("다음 N편"). date 명시하면 그 날 처음부터 limit 개수.
18역 × 다수 열차 → D-3~D+3 전체 응답이 비대해지므로 의미 단위로 잘림.

Args:
    station: 한글역명(예: "서울","홍대입구"), 영문, 또는 3자리 코드. 빈값=전체.
    train_no: 운행번호 (예: "A2046"). 빈값=전체.
    type: "Comm"(일반) / "Dirc"(직통) / 빈값=전체.
    date: YYYY-MM-DD 또는 YYYYMMDD. 빈값=오늘.
    limit: 반환할 최대 row 수 (기본 5, 0=전체). 응답 크기 가드.
    lang: "ko"/"en".

Returns:
    {count, total_available, next_only, limit, query, items:
        [{drv_dt, train_no, direction, train_class, station, stop_type,
          plan_arrv, plan_dptr, actual_arrv, actual_dptr}]}
    total_available > count 이면 limit 늘려 더 보세요 (예: limit=20).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`date`	No
`lang`	No	ko
`type`	No
`limit`	No
`station`	No
`train_no`	No

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
No output parameters

Tool Definition Quality

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, etc. The description adds significant behavioral details: real-time 3-minute refresh, D-3 to D+3 range, response truncation, and the total_available hint. No contradictions.

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?

The description is well-structured with a general intro, behavior notes, arg list, and return format. It is somewhat long but efficient, with no wasted sentences. The information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (6 params, real-time, date range, multiple stations/types), the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter behavior, response structure, and truncation advice. Output schema is also provided externally.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter including formats (e.g., date as YYYY-MM-DD), defaults, and accepted values (e.g., station in Korean/English/code). This adds value beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing Incheon Airport AREX train operation information with real-time updates, date range, and station/type details. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'airport train' explicitly.

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?

The description explains the basic behavior (empty date vs specified, limit, etc.) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself lacks guidance.

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

Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:

{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
  "maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}

The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Servers

seoul-essentials
Location Services Open Data Travel & Transportation
do-droid
F
license
-
quality
D
maintenance
22,000+ public facility data for foreign tourists in Seoul — restrooms, pharmacies, WiFi, AEDs, tourist info centers, and subway timetables. Bilingual (Korean/English).
Last updated 2026-07-14
BarrierFreeSeoul
Travel & Transportation Location Services
whtjdgns2121-dot
F
license
-
quality
B
maintenance
Evaluates Seoul public transit accessibility for people with disabilities, providing real-time elevator status, low-floor bus arrivals, route verification, and call taxi fallback.
Last updated 2026-07-20
Seoul Mobility Advisor
Travel & Transportation Location Services Weather Services
todayoneul
F
license
-
quality
C
maintenance
Integrates real-time Seoul data (weather, air quality, traffic, bike-sharing) and visual context to recommend optimal transportation modes for users.
Last updated 2026-06-19
subway-congestion-mcp
Travel & Transportation Location Services Search
jinjukimink
A
license
-
quality
D
maintenance
Provides real-time and predicted congestion data, route optimization, and train arrival information for Seoul subway lines 1-8, helping users choose the best travel times.
Last updated 2026-01-23
MIT

View all MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Resources

Need Help?