Korea Flight MCP

incheon_arrivals

Read-onlyIdempotent

[한국 공항 실시간 운항정보] 인천공항 입국 도착 정보 (H-2~~H+2 시간 윈도우). 편명·도착시간·게이트·입국장(A-F)·내외국인 수. Incheon Airport arrival info (H-2~~H+2 window). Per-flight schedule/actual time, aircraft gate, entry gate (A-F), domestic/foreign passenger counts.

Examples:
- "How busy is Incheon T1 arrivals right now?" → incheon_arrivals(terno="T1")
- "Any arrivals from Hanoi?" → incheon_arrivals(airport="HAN")
- "Where is VN416 arriving?" → incheon_arrivals(flight_id="VN416")

Args:
    terno: Terminal filter — 'T1' / 'T2' / '' (all). Default ''.
    airport: Origin airport IATA filter (e.g., HAN, NRT). Default '' (all).
    flight_id: Specific flight ID filter (e.g., 'VN416'). Default '' (all).
    lang: Response language — 'E' English (default) / 'K' 한국어 / 'C' 中文 / 'J' 日本語.
          MUST match user's language.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`lang`	No	E
`terno`	No
`airport`	No
`flight_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses the time window (H-2~H+2), the specific data returned (schedule/actual time, aircraft gate, entry gate A-F, domestic/foreign passenger counts), and a language requirement. No contradictions with annotations; the description adds substantial behavioral context.

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 title line, a bilingual synopsis, examples, and parameter bullet points. It is front-loaded with key information. While slightly lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose; no redundant text.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage and an output schema that likely details return values, the description is quite complete. It covers all parameters, time window, and language options. Minor missing aspects: no mention of pagination or error handling, but these are not critical for a straightforward arrival query. The output schema probably fills that gap.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: terno (terminal filter), airport (origin airport IATA), flight_id (specific flight), and lang (response language with options E/K/C/J). It provides defaults and examples, adding meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 '인천공항 입국 도착 정보' (Incheon Airport arrival info) with a specific verb 'arrivals' and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_flight_status and incheon_departure_congestion by focusing on arrival data with a time window and specific fields like entry gate and passenger counts.

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?

Examples explicitly show when to use the tool, e.g., 'How busy is Incheon T1 arrivals right now?' The description implies usage for real-time arrival queries but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like track_my_flight for tracking a specific flight. The context is clear but excludes some exclusionary 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?