flightradar24-mcp-server

get_flight_summary

Read-only

Retrieve takeoff and landing history for completed flights within any date/time window, filtered by flight number, registration, route, or aircraft type.

Instructions

Get takeoff/landing history (flight summary) for flights in a date/time window, optionally filtered by flight number, callsign, registration, airport, route, or aircraft type. Covers completed flights; use get_flight_data for flights currently in the air.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	Sort order by datetime.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return (default: 10, max: 20000).
`route`	No	Route(s) between airports or countries, comma-separated (e.g., 'JFK-LAX'). Max 15.
`airline_icao`	No	ICAO airline code the aircraft is operating as, comma-separated. Max 15.
`detail_level`	No	Amount of detail to return. "light" (default) covers the essentials and costs fewer FR24 API credits; "full" adds runway, distance, and flight-time data.
`registration`	No	Aircraft registration(s), comma-separated. Max 15.
`flight_number`	No	Flight number(s), comma-separated (e.g., 'BA123'). Max 15.
`flight_datetime_to`	Yes	End of the datetime window, ISO 8601 (e.g., '2024-01-02T00:00:00Z'). The window can span at most 14 days.
`flight_datetime_from`	Yes	Start of the datetime window, ISO 8601 (e.g., '2024-01-01T00:00:00Z').

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`query`	Yes
`flights`	Yes
`message`	No
`timestamp`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the useful scope that only completed flights appear in the history, but it does not go into rate/credit limits, ordering caveats, or other behavioral details. This is helpful but not rich beyond what annotations already signal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences: the first states the action, scope, and filters; the second states the completion condition and routes to the live alternative. Every clause earns its place and the key scoping constraint is front-loaded.

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?

With full schema descriptions and an output schema, the description only needs to carry selection-level context, which it does: purpose, historical scope, and the alternative for live flights. It loses a point for the unsupported filter list, which makes the prose not fully trustworthy as a summary of capabilities.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter has a strong description, so the baseline is 3; however, the prose adds an inaccurate filter list—it names callsign, airport, and aircraft type, none of which exist as parameters in the schema. This can mislead an agent into constructing invalid calls, and the accurate filter set is better conveyed by the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and object—'Get takeoff/landing history (flight summary)'—and narrows the resource to flights in a date/time window. It lists optional filter dimensions and explicitly contrasts with get_flight_data for live flights, so an agent can distinguish this tool from siblings immediately.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

'Covers completed flights; use get_flight_data for flights currently in the air' is an explicit when-to-use and alternative rule. It tells the agent the tool is for historical windows and directs live-flight queries elsewhere. No further selection guidance is needed.

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

Deploy Server