Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_count_flights

Read-only

Count flights matching a simplified search query, returning only the total count without fetching individual flight details.

Instructions

Count flights matching a query without returning the flights themselves. Returns { count }. Uses the SIMPLIFIED "-key value" syntax (same as fa_search_flights, NOT the structured grammar of fa_search_flights_advanced). Example: -airline UAL -belowAltitude 30000.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; "full" returns FlightAware's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which FlightAware fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.
queryYesSimplified "-key value" search string (same syntax as fa_search_flights), e.g. -airline UAL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Response shape: \"compact\" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; \"full\" returns every field this server understands. compact strips image/avatar URLs from the response; \"full\" returns FlightAware's payload untouched. No field projection: this server has no verified record of which FlightAware fields matter, and inventing one would risk dropping a field a caller needs.",
+  "enum": [
+    "compact",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns only a count, not the flights themselves, and it clarifies the query syntax family. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but for a count tool with read-only annotations, the added context is solid.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, the syntax distinction is stated immediately, and the example is compact. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple count tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return shape, the syntax family, and gives an example. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what happens with an empty result or invalid query, but that is not essential for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the query parameter uses the simplified syntax and by giving a concrete example ('-airline UAL -belowAltitude 30000'). It also explains the view parameter's compact/full distinction in the schema itself, so the description's added value is moderate but real.

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 states a specific verb ('Count'), a resource ('flights'), and a clear scope ('matching a query without returning the flights themselves'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from fa_search_flights and fa_search_flights_advanced by naming the syntax family it uses, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

The description explicitly says it uses the SIMPLIFIED '-key value' syntax, same as fa_search_flights, and NOT the structured grammar of fa_search_flights_advanced. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, and names the alternative tools. The example further anchors correct usage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools