find_by_callsignTrack a flight by its callsign (e.g. "UAL123"). Returns the live real-time ADS-B position (lat/lon, altitude, ground speed, heading) of the aircraft currently broadcasting that flight callsign. Live position, not a schedule lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| callsign | Yes | Flight callsign, e.g. 'UAL123'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "callsign": "UAL123"
+ },
+ {
+ "callsign": "DAL456"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by clarifying that it returns live real-time position, not a schedule lookup, and lists the specific data fields. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value (live position fields) and the nature of the data. It is complete for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'callsign' parameter. The tool description repeats the example format but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 by callsign and returns live ADS-B position data (lat/lon, altitude, ground speed, heading). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a schedule lookup, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case ('Track a flight by its callsign') and an example. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'aircraft_near' or 'get_aircraft', or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.