Korea Flight MCP

airport_overview

Read-onlyIdempotent

[한국 공항 실시간 운항정보] 공항 오늘 개요 — 운항량, 상위 항공사·노선, 터미널 분포. Airport overview — today's volume, top airlines/routes, terminal split (ICN only). Useful for first-time visitors.

Examples:
- "What's GMP like?" → airport_overview("GMP")
- "ICN T1 departures" → airport_overview("ICN", "T1")  # T1 → P01 자동 변환

Args:
    airport: Airport IATA (e.g. GMP, ICN, CJU)
    terminal: (optional) Terminal ID. ICN 만 의미. 다음 입력 모두 허용:
              - "T1"/"T2"/"터미널1"/"터미널2"/"1"/"2" → 내부적으로 P01/P03 으로 자동 변환
              - "탑승동"/"concourse" → P02
              - "P01"/"P02"/"P03" 정식 코드 그대로
              ICN 외 공항에선 무시됨.
    lang: Response language 'E' (default) / 'K' / 'C' / 'J'. Match user's language.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`lang`	No	E
`airport`	Yes
`terminal`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. Description adds behavioral detail: terminal parameter is only meaningful for ICN and automatically converts inputs (e.g., T1 to P01). This goes beyond annotations 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 long but well-organized with bilingual summary, examples, and parameter breakdown. Front-loaded with the key summary. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.

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 (3 parameters, conditional terminal), and presence of output schema, the description is complete. It explains terminal behavior, language options, and provides examples. No gaps for agent invocation.

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 provides extensive parameter documentation: airport IATA, terminal ID mapping (with aliases), language options. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 an airport overview with today's volume, top airlines/routes, and terminal split. It specifies the resource (airport), scope (today), and distinguishes from sibling tools like incheon_arrivals and incheon_departure_congestion by being a broader overview. Examples reinforce the purpose.

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 provides examples and context (useful for first-time visitors), but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools. The context is clear enough, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Korea Flight MCP tools Inspect

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., airport_overview vs. incheon_arrivals vs. track_my_flight), but there is some overlap between get_flight_status and track_my_flight, and between get_flight_status and incheon_arrivals, which could cause minor confusion despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the pattern is not uniform: some start with a noun (airport_overview, incheon_arrivals) and others with a verb (get_flight_status, track_my_flight). Names like 'incheon_departure_congestion' are descriptive but lengthy. Overall, conventions are mostly consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools cover a well-scoped domain of Korean airport flight information without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the number is typical for a focused MCP server.

Completeness4/5

Core operations (flight status, tracking, route search, overview) are present, and ICN has detailed tools (arrivals, congestion, facilities). However, non-ICN airports lack similar depth, which is a notable gap for a server covering 14 airports.

Resources

Need Help?