Skip to main content
Glama

Aeropuertos cercanos a una ciudad

city-airports
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lista los aeropuertos con servicio regular dentro de un radio (100 km por defecto, hasta 300) de una ciudad de 100.000 habitantes o más dada por nombre (resuelta en la lista GeoNames incluida, país opcional), ordenados por distancia ortodrómica. Cuándo: hay que encontrar los aeropuertos que sirven a una ciudad, o los más cercanos dentro de un radio. No para: listar los aeropuertos de una ciudad o país (airport-search). Efectos secundarios: ninguno (solo lectura, sin red, sin estado guardado). Determinista: la misma entrada da la misma salida. Límites: entrada JSON de hasta 64 KB, 1 s por llamada, resultado de hasta 1 MB.

EN: Lists the airports with scheduled service within a radius (default 100 km, up to 300) of a city of 100,000 or more inhabitants given by name (resolved in the embedded GeoNames list, optional country), sorted by great-circle distance, from embedded OurAirports data. [EN completo / full EN: inputSchema.description]

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "city": "Medellín"
    },
    "name": "city-airports"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYesCity name in its usual or Spanish form; a trailing ", country" narrows it (Medellín, Valencia, Venezuela) (string; required; at least 2 chars; up to 100 chars).
countryNoOptional country (ISO code or name) to tell apart cities with the same name (string; optional; at least 1 chars; up to 80 chars).
radius_kmNoSearch radius in km (number; optional; default 100; min 1; max 300).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNo
countNo
methodNo
sourceNo
airportsNo
ambiguousNo
radius_kmNo
other_matchesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, closed-world, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: no network access, no stored state, determinism of output, the embedded data sources (GeoNames and OurAirports), and concrete operational limits (64 KB input, 1 s per call, 1 MB result). These are exactly the constraints an agent needs to avoid oversized requests or retries.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then clearly chunked into Cuándo / No para / Efectos secundarios / Determinista / Límites labels that make scanning cheap. The cost is the near-verbatim Spanish and English duplication, which doubles length without adding information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the remaining gaps an agent would care about — data sources, determinism, execution limits, and the sibling alternative — are all covered. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not carry: the city is resolved against an embedded GeoNames list and must have 100,000+ inhabitants, which implies a coverage limit on lookups. The country parameter's disambiguation role and the radius ceiling are largely echoed from 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list airports with scheduled service within a radius of a city) with the qualifying constraints: city population floor of 100,000, default radius 100 km, max 300, sorted by great-circle distance. It names the sibling it is not (airport-search), so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Has an explicit "Cuándo" clause defining the triggering situation (find airports serving a city, or the nearest within a radius) and an explicit "No para" clause naming the alternative tool for listing airports by city/country. Both the positive and negative conditions are stated, not inferred.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources