Korea Flight MCP

codeshare_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

[한국 공항 실시간 운항정보] 인천공항편의 코드쉐어 정보 — 마스터편명·파트너편 (ICN 전용). Codeshare info for ICN flights — master flight number + codeshare partners. ICN-only (other airports don't provide codeshare data).

Examples:
- "Is OZ117 a codeshare?" → codeshare_info("OZ117")
- "Master flight of ET1291?" → codeshare_info("ET1291")

Args:
    flight_id: Flight number (e.g. OZ117, ET1291)
    lang: Response language 'E' (default) / 'K' / 'C' / 'J'. Match user's language.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No		E
`flight_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

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 the critical behavioral constraint that codeshare data is only available for ICN flights. No contradictions with 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?

Well-structured with bilingual title, description, examples, and parameter list. Slightly wordy but efficient for the information conveyed.

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?

Adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and constraints. Output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. Parameter semantics are thorough.

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 coverage, description fully compensates by explaining flight_id (with examples) and lang (with allowed values and tip to match user's language). Adds clear guidance beyond the bare 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?

Clearly states the tool provides codeshare info for ICN flights, specifying master flight number and partners. Distinguishes from siblings by noting ICN-only limitation and focusing on codeshare data as opposed to general flight status.

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?

Provides concrete examples of when to use (e.g., checking if a flight is a codeshare, finding master flight). Implicitly suggests not using for non-ICN flights, but lacks explicit contrast with sibling tools like get_flight_status.

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?