Skip to main content
Glama

flights

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Flight Route

get_flight_route
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a flight callsign / flight number (e.g. "UAL1", "BAW117") to its airline and scheduled ROUTE — origin and destination airports with names, IATA/ICAO codes, and coordinates. No key required. Use for "where does flight X fly from/to", "what route is ", "which airline is ". Complements get_flights_in_area, which gives you callsigns of aircraft currently overhead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
callsignYesFlight callsign, ICAO or IATA form (e.g. "UAL1", "UA1", "BAW117")

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "callsign": "UAL1"
+  },
+  {
+    "callsign": "BAW117"
+  }
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'No key required' (authentication context) and 'scheduled ROUTE' (clarifying it is schedule-based, not real-time), which go beyond the annotations. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but with annotations this is adequate.

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?

Four purposeful sentences: purpose, authentication note, concrete use cases, and sibling differentiation. No redundancy or filler; the key verb and resource appear first.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers input, output (airline, route, airports, codes, coordinates), use cases, and access requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already defines callsign as ICAO or IATA form with examples. The tool description repeats the same examples ('UAL1', 'BAW117') without adding additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Resolve' and identifies the resource (flight callsign) and output (airline and scheduled route with airports/codes/coordinates). It explicitly differentiates from sibling get_flights_in_area, making the tool's role clear.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit use cases: 'where does flight X fly from/to', 'what route is <callsign>', and 'which airline is <callsign>'. It also names get_flights_in_area as the complementary tool for overhead callsigns, giving a clear alternative.

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

All flights 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research blur the query/research boundary, and the polymarket_* family plus bet_research all target prediction-market analysis. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the correct tool among these near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but the verb/noun style is inconsistent: get_* for flight lookups, ask_* for queries, noun-style names like entity_profile and bet_research, and the polymarket_* prefix group. Some subgroups are internally consistent, but there is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far too many for a server named 'flights' — only 5 tools actually relate to aviation, while the rest span prediction markets, SEC/FDA data, npm packages, memory, and feedback. Even viewed as a general data platform, the count is heavy and the scope is unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For a flights server, the surface is severely incomplete: no scheduled flight status, delays, cancellations, or airport schedules — only live ADS-B snapshots. For the broader data-research domain the tools imply, coverage is better but still scattered, with no coherent lifecycle and several one-off utilities that don't connect to the rest.

Resources