Korea Flight MCP

get_flight_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

[한국 공항 실시간 운항정보] 한국 14개 공항의 실시간 출도착 정보를 조회합니다. Look up real-time arrival/departure status for 14 Korean airports.

Rendering: every line already carries the gate ('게이트 267' / 'Gate 267'), the
terminal, and — for departures — the check-in counter ('체크인 A B C D' /
'check-in B01-B18'). When you render a table, give the gate AND the check-in
counter their own columns next to 편명·목적지·시각·상태·터미널 — do not drop them.
A departing passenger moves check-in → security → gate, so a table without those
two sends them back to ask again. '-' means not assigned yet; show '-' rather than
inventing or guessing a gate or counter.

Args:
    airport: Airport IATA (ICN/GMP/PUS/CJU/TAE/CJJ etc., 14 total)
    direction: 'arrival' or 'departure'
    flight_date: date — omit or 'today' for live; 'yesterday'/'YYYY-MM-DD' for snapshot.
                 Up to 30 days back. ICN historical data only on dates the nightly
                 snapshot ran.
    lang: Response language — 'E' English (default) / 'K' 한국어 / 'C' 中文 / 'J' 日本語.
          MUST be filled to match user's language: 한국어 질문이면 'K', 中文이면 'C',
          日本語면 'J'. Default 'E' is the safest pivot for any other language.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`lang`	No	E
`airport`	No	ICN
`direction`	No	arrival
`flight_date`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: every line includes gate, terminal, and check-in counter; '-' means not assigned; historical data only for ICN on snapshot nights; up to 30 days back. This adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 longer than average due to the rendering instructions and parameter details, but every part earns its place: the rendering note prevents critical data loss, and the parameter details are essential given 0% schema coverage. It's well-structured with a clear header, a rendering paragraph, and an Args list. Slightly verbose but justified.

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 tool has 4 parameters (all optional with defaults), an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety/idempotency. The description adds critical rendering instructions and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit return format details but the output schema exists, so that's fine. It covers the main complexity: rendering, date range, historical limitations, and language handling. A minor gap is not explaining what happens if an invalid airport code is passed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the format for flight_date ('today', 'yesterday', 'YYYY-MM-DD', up to 30 days back), the expected values for airport (IATA codes), direction ('arrival'/'departure'), and lang (must match user's language, default 'E'). This is useful because the schema has no descriptions or enums, so the description effectively compensates.

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 looks up real-time arrival/departure status for 14 Korean airports, with a bilingual (Korean/English) front line. It specifies the resource (14 Korean airports) and the action (look up real-time info), and the rendering note further distinguishes it from siblings like incheon_arrivals or track_my_flight by covering multiple airports.

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 clear usage context for the data returned (rendering requirements, how to handle '-') and parameter usage (airport codes, direction, date, language matching). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., incheon_arrivals for ICN specifics, track_my_flight for a specific flight), so it's clear but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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?