Korea Flight MCP

incheon_facilities

Read-onlyIdempotent

[한국 공항 실시간 운항정보] 인천공항 입점 상업시설(매장·서비스) 정보 — 약 1,227개. dataset 15095043 (B551177 family). Incheon Airport commercial facilities (~1,227 stores/services). Filter by query.

Examples:
- "Where is Starbucks at Incheon?" → incheon_facilities(query="Starbucks")
- "면세점 어디 있어?" → incheon_facilities(query="면세점", lang="K")
- "Toilets in departure area?" → incheon_facilities(query="Toilet", area="departure")
- "출국장 음식점" → incheon_facilities(query="식당", area="departure", lang="K")

Args:
    query: Facility name / item / location filter (case-insensitive partial match). '' = top by area.
    area: 'arrival' (A=입국장) / 'departure' (D=출국장) / '' (all).
    lang: 'E' English (default — uses EN endpoint) / 'K' 한국어 (uses KR endpoint).
          C/J fall back to English.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`area`	No
`lang`	No	E
`query`	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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that queries are case-insensitive partial matches, language fallback behavior, and references a specific dataset. This adds useful context beyond 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?

The description is well-structured with a brief intro, example section, and argument list. It is slightly verbose but remains clear and front-loaded with key information.

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 output schema exists and annotations are provided, the description covers all necessary aspects for effective use: data source, filtering options, language behavior, and examples. It is thorough for a search tool.

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?

All three parameters (query, area, lang) are explained in the description with example values and constraints. Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by defining each parameter's purpose and allowed values.

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 is for Incheon Airport commercial facilities (~1,227 stores/services). The name 'incheon_facilities' matches, and examples demonstrate typical queries. It is distinct from sibling tools like flight status or congestion.

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?

Multiple examples illustrate when to use the tool, with various filters (query, area, lang). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings.

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?