mcp.xynaptic

flight-airport-brief

Xynaptic Flight Airport Brief — any airport worldwide by name or IATA code: country, IATA/ICAO codes, coordinates, elevation, runway count, served airlines hint. Open data (Wikidata). GET ?q=Jakarta or ?q=CGK. [price: $0.020 per call, x402/USDC]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	No	query parameters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / body

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "JSON body for POST endpoints (e.g. insurance, ai-chat, production-risk)",
-  "type": "object"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / params / description

Previous value: -"query parameters, e.g. {city: 'Paris', type: 'Appartement'}"New value: +"query parameters"

addedInput schema / properties / params / properties

Added value: +{
+  "coord": {
+    "description": "example: {\"lat\":-6.12,\"lon\":106.96}",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "country": {
+    "description": "example: \"Indonesia\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "iata": {
+    "description": "example: \"CGK\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "icao": {
+    "description": "example: \"WIII\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "q": {
+    "description": "example: \"CGK\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[]
```

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source (open Wikidata) and the payment requirement (price $0.020 per call, x402/USDC), which is real behavioral context. It omits rate limits, error/no-match behavior, and whether any param combination narrows results vs. returns a list.

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?

A single dense, front-loaded sentence covering resource, outputs, source, and invocation example, followed by the price note. Slightly run-on in the field enumeration, but little waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the work of naming return fields, source, and cost, which is adequate for a lookup tool. However, it ignores four of the five declared inputs, so an agent cannot tell whether iata/icao/coord/country are alternate lookup modes or refinements of the q query.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful fact that q accepts either a name or an IATA code, but it never mentions the schema's other inputs (iata, icao, coord, country), so it does not enrich semantics beyond the q parameter.

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?

Names a specific resource (airport brief) and enumerates the returned fields (country, IATA/ICAO, coordinates, elevation, runway count, airlines hint), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling flight-airport-situation or other flight-* tools, leaving the reference-vs-live distinction to inference.

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?

Provides concrete invocation examples (?q=Jakarta or ?q=CGK) that imply how to call it. No statement of when to prefer this over flight-airport-situation, flight-route-risk, or notam-area, and no conditions/exclusions are given.

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

All mcp.xynaptic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?