Skip to main content
Glama

airports

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Airport

get_airport
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get airport details by IATA code (e.g., "JFK", "LHR"). Returns name, city, country, coordinates, altitude, timezone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iata_codeYesThree-letter IATA airport code (e.g. "JFK")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYesCity where airport is located
iataYesThree-letter IATA code
icaoYesFour-letter ICAO code
nameYesAirport name
countryYesCountry where airport is located
latitudeYesLatitude coordinate
timezoneYesAirport timezone
longitudeYesLongitude coordinate
altitude_ftYesAltitude in feet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "altitude_ft": {
+      "description": "Altitude in feet",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "city": {
+      "description": "City where airport is located",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "country": {
+      "description": "Country where airport is located",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "iata": {
+      "description": "Three-letter IATA code",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "icao": {
+      "description": "Four-letter ICAO code",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "latitude": {
+      "description": "Latitude coordinate",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "longitude": {
+      "description": "Longitude coordinate",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Airport name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timezone": {
+      "description": "Airport timezone",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "name",
+    "city",
+    "country",
+    "iata",
+    "icao",
+    "latitude",
+    "longitude",
+    "altitude_ft",
+    "timezone"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "iata_code": "JFK"
+  },
+  {
+    "iata_code": "LHR"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds the return fields but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential errors, caching, or data freshness. Given the strong annotation coverage, the description provides modest extra context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then a clear list of return fields. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with one parameter, a rich output schema (implied by 'has output schema: true'), and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameter, and return values. It does not mention error handling or invalid code behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and existing schema, this is a minor gap that does not undermine usability.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (iata_code) with a clear description. The tool description repeats the code examples ('JFK', 'LHR') already present in the schema, adding no new semantics. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('airport details by IATA code'). It also lists the specific details returned (name, city, country, coordinates, altitude, timezone). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_airports, the 'by IATA code' scope implies a distinct lookup mechanism, making the purpose clear.

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 implies usage context: when you have an IATA code, you can retrieve airport details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. the sibling search_airports, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternatives. The guidance is thus inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All airports toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but the three 'ask_pipeworx' variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are highly similar and likely cause confusion. Additionally, the toolset mixes airport-specific tools with unrelated financial and research tools, creating ambiguity about when to use which.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use descriptive snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others are single verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some include brand names (pipeworx_feedback). No clear pattern emerges across the 34 tools.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'airports'—only 3 tools directly relate to airports (search_airports, get_airport, calculate_distance). The majority are unrelated utilities (financial, prediction markets, memory), making the scope far too broad and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

The server severely lacks completeness for its stated airport domain: there are no tools for flights, airlines, runways, or real-time data. The other included domains (e.g., financial, prediction markets) are also incomplete, with e.g., only partial coverage of company data and no update/delete operations.

Resources