get_aircraftTrack a specific aircraft by its 24-bit ICAO hex address (e.g. "a835af"). Returns the live ADS-B position (lat/lon, altitude, speed, heading) of that exact airframe if it is currently transmitting. Real-time position data, not schedules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hex | Yes | 24-bit ICAO hex address, e.g. 'a835af'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "hex": "a835af"
+ },
+ {
+ "hex": "3c6cb9"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns live ADS-B data (not schedules) and only if the aircraft is currently transmitting. This goes beyond annotations by revealing real-time nature and the conditional availability of data.
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 sentences long, with the first sentence immediately stating the action ('Track a specific aircraft') and the parameter. The second sentence adds details on return data and a qualifier. No redundant information; every word is purposeful.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what data the tool returns (lat/lon, altitude, speed, heading) and the condition for success (currently transmitting). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand inputs and expected outputs, though a note on error handling would make it a 5.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter, describing 'hex' as a 24-bit ICAO hex address. The description enriches this by providing a concrete example ('a835af') and clarifying that the tool tracks a specific aircraft, tying the parameter to the tool's function. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
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's purpose: tracking a specific aircraft by its 24-bit ICAO hex address and returning live ADS-B position data. The verb 'track' and resource 'aircraft by hex address' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from siblings like 'aircraft_near' or 'find_by_callsign' by focusing on a single aircraft identified by hex.
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 clear context: use this tool when you have a specific ICAO hex address and need real-time position data. It notes the limitation that data is only returned 'if it is currently transmitting,' which guides proper usage. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, so it is not a 5.
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.