routesQuery scheduled flight routes from Aviationstack by departure IATA (dep_iata), arrival IATA (arr_iata), airline IATA code, or flight number; returns scheduled service pairings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| arr_iata | No | ||
| dep_iata | No | ||
| airline_iata | No | ||
| flight_number | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Array of route objects | |
| pagination | No | Pagination metadata |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "arr_iata": "LAX",
+ "dep_iata": "JFK"
+ },
+ {
+ "airline_iata": "AA",
+ "flight_number": "100"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Array of route objects",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "aircraft_type": {
+ "description": "Aircraft type code",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "airline_iata": {
+ "description": "Airline IATA code",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "airline_icao": {
+ "description": "Airline ICAO code",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "airline_name": {
+ "description": "Airline name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "arrival_airport_iata": {
+ "description": "Arrival airport IATA",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "arrival_airport_icao": {
+ "description": "Arrival airport ICAO",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "arrival_airport_name": {
+ "description": "Arrival airport name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "departure_airport_iata": {
+ "description": "Departure airport IATA",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "departure_airport_icao": {
+ "description": "Departure airport ICAO",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "departure_airport_name": {
+ "description": "Departure airport name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "flight_number": {
+ "description": "Flight number",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "pagination": {
+ "description": "Pagination metadata",
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "limit": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "offset": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds the data source ('Aviationstack') and output type ('scheduled service pairings'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., real-time vs. static data). No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose and parameters without any superfluous words.
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 annotations cover behavioral traits and an output schema exists, the description covers the main aspects. It could be improved by mentioning the 'limit' parameter and clarifying combinations of parameters.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of four of five parameters (dep_iata, arr_iata, airline_iata, flight_number). The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned, but its purpose is generic.
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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'scheduled flight routes', and specifies the query parameters (dep_iata, arr_iata, airline_iata, flight_number). It distinguishes routes from sibling tool 'flights' by mentioning 'scheduled service pairings'.
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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'flights' or 'airlines'. No guidance on exclusions or conditions for use.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and deep_research all routing queries, and the polymarket family (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk) covering similar ground. While descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
Tool names mix bare nouns (airlines, airports, flights) with verb phrases (compare_entities, resolve_entity) and standalone verbs (remember, forget), with no consistent verb_noun pattern. Names like ask_pipeworx_beta and scan_competitor_ai_presence are internally inconsistent with the rest.
37 tools is far beyond the typical scope for a single server, and many are unrelated to the aviation theme, suggesting a lack of focus. The core aviation functionality only accounts for 6 of the tools.
The aviation tools (airlines, airports, flights, routes, cities, countries) cover basic lookups, but advanced operations like delay statistics or aircraft data are absent. The unrelated tools do not fill these gaps, and the overall surface feels shallow for a server claiming to be an Aviationstack.