Skip to main content
Glama

Faa Regulations

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Faa Regulation

faa_regulation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full text of one Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) — a US FAA / aviation regulation codified in 14 CFR — by its citation. Returns the exact regulatory wording currently in force. Answers "what does FAR 91.113 say", "what is the FAA regulation for X", "does the FAA require X", "read 14 CFR 107.29", "the FAA right-of-way rule". Forgiving citation input: "91.113", "14 CFR 91.113", "FAR 91.113", "§91.113", even "91.113(b)" (paragraph stripped to the section). Covers 14 CFR part 91 general operating & flight rules, part 121 airline/scheduled operations, part 135 commuter & on-demand, part 107 small unmanned aircraft (drone) rules, part 61 pilot/airman certification, part 43 maintenance, part 145 repair stations, part 25 aircraft airworthiness — the whole of Title 14 (aviation, aircraft, airspace, pilots). Pass a whole part (e.g. "91" or "107") to get that part's section list. Example: faa_regulation({ citation: "91.113" }) -> right-of-way rules; faa_regulation({ citation: "FAR 107.29" }) -> drone operation at night. Keyless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citationYesFAR citation. A section: "91.113", "14 CFR 91.113", "FAR 107.29", "§61.113", "91.113(b)". Or a whole part: "91", "part 107" -> returns the part's section list.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining input forgiveness, paragraph stripping, and that whole parts return section lists. The openWorldHint is not elaborated, but the behavior aligns.

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 well-structured, starting with purpose, then examples, then coverage. It is slightly verbose but each sentence contributes. Could trim redundancy (e.g., repeating 'FAR' and '14 CFR' multiple times).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one required param and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers input format, return value (full text), available parts, and edge cases (whole part vs section). Agent can confidently invoke correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 100% schema coverage and only one parameter, the description dramatically enriches the meaning with allowed formats, examples (91.113, FAR 107.29), and coverage of parts. The schema's brief description is fully supplemented.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the exact resource (Federal Aviation Regulation, 14 CFR), and provides clear examples and coverage scope. It distinguishes from sibling faa_search by narrowing to a single regulation retrieval vs searching.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for use (e.g., 'answers what does FAR 91.113 say'), and implicitly steers away from faa_search for broader queries. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' language.

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

All Faa Regulations 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,714-tool catalog with heavily overlapping purposes, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction-market analysis and could easily be confused by an agent. The two FAA tools (faa_regulation, faa_search) are distinct, but they are buried among a dozen unrelated data-lookup and memory tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (faa_search, resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim, discover_tools, unsubscribe). Minor deviations exist, such as ask_pipeworx and pipeworx_feedback lacking underscores, and the polymarket_* family mixes noun-led names, but overall the naming is readable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools for a server named 'Faa Regulations' is a severe mismatch: only 2 of the 33 tools (faa_regulation, faa_search) relate to FAA regulations, with the rest covering general data lookups, prediction markets, SEC filings, memory storage, npm dependency checking, and llms.txt generation. The count is far too high for the stated domain, and most tools do not belong in this server at all.

Completeness2/5

The actual FAA surface is thin: faa_search provides keyword lookup and faa_regulation returns full text or a part's section list, so basic citation-lookup workflows work, but there is no update/amendment tracking, no browse-by-part navigation beyond a section list, and no related aviation data such as NOTAMs or TFRs. The dominant Pipeworx tool family is unrelated to FAA regulations, so an agent using this server for its apparent purpose would hit dead ends quickly.

Resources