Korea Flight MCP

search_by_route

Read-onlyIdempotent

[한국 공항 실시간 운항정보] 두 공항 사이 오늘 운항편을 검색합니다 (양방향, 한쪽은 한국 공항). Find today's flights between an origin and a destination airport. Bidirectional — at least one side must be a Korean hub.

Examples:
- "GMP→CJU schedule" → search_by_route("GMP", "CJU")
- "Flights from Vancouver to Incheon" → search_by_route("YVR", "ICN")
- "ICN→Narita flights" → search_by_route("ICN", "NRT")

Args:
    origin: Origin airport IATA (e.g. GMP, ICN, YVR)
    destination: Destination airport IATA (e.g. CJU, NRT, ICN)
    lang: Response language 'E' (default) / 'K' / 'C' / 'J'. Match user's language.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`lang`	No	E
`origin`	Yes
`destination`	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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-mutating query. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are for today, bidirectional, and require a Korean airport on one side. This exceeds annotation coverage without contradiction.

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 reasonably concise, using a brief Korean/English summary followed by examples and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds either context or usage guidance. Minor redundancy between Korean and English text, but overall efficient.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential behavioral constraints (today only, bidirectional, Korean hub). It omits edge cases like empty results or time zones, but for a query tool with good annotations, this is acceptable.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully document parameter meaning. It does: origin and destination are IATA codes with examples (GMP, ICN, YVR), lang offers 'E'/'K'/'C'/'J' with a recommendation to match the user's language. This adds significant value 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?

The description uses specific verbs ('search', 'find') and clearly defines the resource ('today's flights between origin and destination'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_flight_status (specific flight) and incheon_arrivals (single airport) via the bidirectional requirement and Korean hub condition. Examples reinforce the scope.

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 explicitly states when to use: flights between two airports, today, bidirectional, at least one Korean hub. It does not directly exclude alternatives or provide a when-not-to-use list, but the context from examples and sibling names implies differentiation. Could be improved by naming sibling tools for exclusion.

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?