Real-time flight departures and arrivals for any airport worldwide via AeroDataBox. Track flights, get schedules, airport info. Travel agents, logistics bots, delay monitoring.
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.
Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Both tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides static airport details, the other lists flight departures. There is no ambiguity or overlap.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, making it easy to infer their function.
With only 2 tools, the server feels underdeveloped for its domain. A typical flight data service would benefit from at least 3-5 tools to cover common queries.
The server claims to provide real-time flight data but lacks essential operations such as arrivals, flight status by number, or delay information, leaving significant gaps.
get_airport_infoAInspectGet airport information including name, city, country, timezone, and coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iata | No | IATA airport code (default: JFK) | JFK |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It names the information returned (name, city, country, timezone, coordinates), which is transparent. However, it does not mention read-only nature, potential errors (e.g., invalid IATA code), or rate limits. For a simple data retrieval tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 is direct and free of extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and lists key output fields efficiently.
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?
Given low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete, listing all relevant output fields. However, it lacks handling of edge cases (e.g., invalid IATA code) and could mention that the tool is read-only. Still, for its simplicity, it is mostly complete.
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?
The schema describes the single parameter 'iata' with a default and description ('IATA airport code (default: JFK)'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that coordinates and timezone are included in the output, which is not parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the work.
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 'Get airport information' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the fields included (name, city, country, timezone, coordinates). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_flight_departures' by focusing on static airport data versus dynamic flight 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 implies usage for retrieving airport details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The sibling tool name provides some context, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_flight_departuresAInspectGet 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists return fields but does not mention potential delays, real-time vs scheduled, error handling, or any restrictions.
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 two sentences: one stating the action and one listing return fields. No unnecessary words, well-structured.
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?
Given low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema) the description covers purpose and return data. Missing details like default behavior when no results or ordering, but sufficient for a simple retrieval 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (hours and airport). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 for an airport and lists specific return fields like flight number, airline, status. It distinguishes from sibling get_airport_info, which likely provides airport details rather than flight schedules.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_airport_info. The purpose is clear but lacks when-not-to-use or contextual 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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
