AgentFlight — Real-Time Flight Data
Server Details
Real-time flight departures and arrivals for any airport worldwide via AeroDataBox. Track flights, get schedules, airport info. Travel agents, logistics bots, delay monitoring.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides static airport information, the other dynamic flight departures. No overlap or confusion.
Both tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern ('get_airport_info' and 'get_flight_departures'), making the naming predictable.
Only 2 tools for a broad domain like real-time flight data is insufficient. A typical flight data API would include arrivals, flight status by number, etc.
The server is missing essential operations such as arrivals, flight status by flight number, or search flights. The surface is incomplete for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_airport_infoBInspect
Get airport information including name, city, country, timezone, and coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iata | No | IATA airport code (default: JFK) | JFK |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only lists returned fields, omitting details like read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or error handling for invalid IATA codes. The disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no wasted words, clear structure. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently conveys what the tool returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain what is returned; it lists fields adequately. However, it lacks completeness on error behavior, result multiplicity, or edge cases, which are important for a simple lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'IATA airport code (default: JFK)'. It only hints at return fields, not parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('airport information'), listing specific fields (name, city, country, timezone, coordinates). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_flight_departures' by focusing on static airport data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool 'get_flight_departures'. It lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_flight_departuresBInspect
Get flight departures from an airport. Returns flight number, airline, destination, scheduled time, status, gate, and terminal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Look-ahead window in hours (1-12, default: 6) | |
| airport | No | IATA airport code (default: JFK) | JFK |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the tool returns departure data. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, potential side effects, or any restrictions. For a read operation, minimal transparency is acceptable, but the lack of any behavioral context reduces the score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output fields. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's function and what it returns. However, it could explicitly state that the departures are filtered by the hours parameter, and it does not contrast with the sibling tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (hours and airport) are well documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves flight departures from an airport and lists the specific fields returned (flight number, airline, destination, etc.). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_airport_info, which likely provides airport metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling get_airport_info. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!