Retrieve real-time flight arrival and departure schedules for airports using IATA codes, airline names, and schedule types to track flight status and plan travel.
MCP tool to get flight arrival and departure schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| airport_iata_code | Yes | ||
| schedule_type | Yes | ||
| airline_name | Yes | ||
| number_of_flights | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's purpose without any details on permissions, rate limits, response format, error handling, or side effects. For a tool with 4 required parameters and an output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
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 the tool's complexity (4 required parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
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 0%, meaning parameter titles provide no semantic context. The description adds no information about parameters, such as what 'schedule_type' entails or how 'number_of_flights' is used. With 4 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema's deficiencies.
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 'MCP tool to get flight arrival and departure schedule' restates the tool name with minimal added value. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'flight arrival and departure schedule', but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation from siblings like 'future_flights_arrival_departure_schedule'. This is borderline tautological with the name.
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 alternatives. With siblings like 'flights_with_airline' and 'future_flights_arrival_departure_schedule', the description offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites for selection. This leaves the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Pradumnasaraf/aviationstack-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server