Korea Flight MCP

incheon_departure_congestion

Read-onlyIdempotent

[한국 공항 실시간 운항정보] 인천공항 출국장 혼잡도 (1분 주기 실시간). 출국장 게이트별 대기인원 + 발생일시. Incheon Airport departure hall congestion (1-min real-time). Per-gate wait count. T1 (P01) currently available; T2 (P02) coming soon per data.go.kr.

Examples:
- "How crowded is Incheon T1 departure right now?" → incheon_departure_congestion(terminal="T1")

Args:
    terminal: 'T1' (or 'P01') — Terminal 1. 'T2'/'P02' pending data.go.kr release.
    lang: Response language — 'E' (default) / 'K' / 'C' / 'J'. Match user's language.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds real-time update frequency (1-min) and per-gate granularity. 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?

Well-structured with bilingual text and an example, but slightly verbose due to repetition. Still efficient for the content provided.

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 essential aspects: functionality, scope (T1 only), real-time nature, and return data type. Output schema handles return details. No gaps.

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, the description fully explains both parameters (terminal values and lang options) including pending status and language-matching tip.

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 real-time per-gate wait counts for Incheon Airport departure hall, distinguishing it from sibling tools like incheon_arrivals and incheon_facilities.

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?

Includes an example query and notes T2 is pending, which guides usage. Could explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but sibling context provides comparison.

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?