mcp.xynaptic

notam-brief

Xynaptic NOTAM Brief — official FAA Notices to Airmen for any US airport (ICAO or 3-letter code): active runway/taxiway/airspace notices with effective dates, plain-English text and ICAO format. Official FAA NMS-API source. GET ?location=KDFW. [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: +{
+  "critical": {
+    "description": "example: 2",
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "location": {
+    "description": "example: \"KDFW\"",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "notams": {
+    "description": "example: 12",
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+}

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

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real context: the official FAA NMS-API data source, the returned formats, and an explicit cost of $0.020 per call via x402/USDC. It does not disclose auth/settlement requirements beyond the price tag, rate limits, or how failures/empty results behave, so meaningful gaps remain.

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 block that front-loads what the tool is, then source, example request, and pricing. Every clause carries information, though the marketing-style 'Xynaptic' prefix and bracketed price tag add a little noise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema fetch tool, the description covers source, content shape, code format, example call, and cost – enough to invoke it correctly. The main omission is any routing information relative to notam-area.

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%, though the field descriptions are only literal examples (location: "KDFW", notams: 12, critical: 2). The description's 'GET ?location=KDFW' conveys the location format (ICAO or 3-letter) and improves on that, but the numeric notams/critical params remain unexplained in both places, so it neither compensates nor regresses.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource (official FAA NOTAM briefs for US airports) and enumerates the content returned (runway/taxiway/airspace notices, effective dates, plain-English and ICAO formats). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling notam-area, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite notam-area being an obvious overlapping sibling. The agent is left to infer that this is the per-airport NOTAM lookup from the example GET query alone.

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?