Look up a single aircraft by ICAO24 hex or callsign substring to return its current state, registration, threat assessment, and latest fix.
Look up one aircraft by ICAO24 hex (exact) or callsign (substring). Returns its current state, registration, an integrity/threat assessment, and the latest server-held fix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ident | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it discloses the return payload (current state, registration, integrity/threat assessment, latest server fix), which is real added context. It says nothing about read-only semantics, behavior when the ident matches nothing, or how ambiguity between a hex and a callsign is resolved.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the lookup modes and followed by the return payload; no boilerplate or repetition of the tool name.
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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description covers input semantics and sketches the return surface, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (no match, conflicting identifier types) rather than anything structural.
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 0% — the 'ident' property has no description at all — so the description must compensate, and it largely does by defining the two accepted identifier namespaces and the matching mode for each. It stops short of specifying precedence when a value is valid as both, or any normalization rules.
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?
States a specific verb (look up) and resource (one aircraft) and narrows it to a single record, which separates it from the bulk/query siblings. It does not name which sibling to prefer (query_aircraft, adsb_by_hex, aircraft_dossier), so the differentiation is only implicit.
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 parenthetical '(exact)' vs '(substring)' gives implied guidance on which identifier form to supply, but there is no statement of when to use this tool instead of adsb_by_hex, adsb_by_callsign, query_aircraft, or aircraft_dossier. An agent must infer the routing from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.