Korea Flight MCP

track_my_flight

Read-onlyIdempotent

[한국 공항 실시간 운항정보] 편명을 추적해 예정/변경 시각, 게이트, 수취대, 상태를 알려줍니다. (픽업에 유용) Track a flight — scheduled/estimated times, gate, baggage carousel, status. Carousel is critical for airport pickup.

Examples:
- "Is KE093 delayed?" → track_my_flight("KE093")
- "7C166 arrival time & carousel" → track_my_flight("7C166")
- "BX804F departure gate" → track_my_flight("BX804F", "GMP")

Args:
    flight_id: Flight number (e.g. KE093, 7C166, BX804F)
    hub_airport: Hub airport IATA. If known, narrows search. Empty triggers
                 30-day snapshot DB lookup → falls back to 4-hub fan-out.
    lang: Response language 'E' (default) / 'K' / 'C' / 'J'. Match user's language.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`lang`	No	E
`flight_id`	Yes
`hub_airport`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains the fallback mechanism (30-day snapshot DB lookup then 4-hub fan-out) when hub_airport is empty. 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose in both Korean and English, followed by examples and parameter explanations. It is somewhat long but every sentence contributes value. Could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.

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 an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers return values (times, gate, carousel, status). It explains all parameters and provides usage examples. It lacks explicit context on when to prefer siblings, but overall is fairly complete for the tool's scope.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden for parameter semantics. It explains flight_id (flight number), hub_airport (narrows search, with fallback behavior), and lang (response language with defaults). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool tracks a flight to provide scheduled/estimated times, gate, baggage carousel, and status. It is specific to Korean airport real-time flight info. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_flight_status or airport_overview, but the focus on carousel and gate distinguishes it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives examples of when to use the tool (e.g., flight delay, arrival time, carousel) and highlights carousel for pickup. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternative sibling tools, leaving usage context implied.

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?