Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_create_alert

Create a FlightAware AeroAPI flight alert to monitor a chosen flight ident for departure, arrival, cancellation, diversion, or ETA changes. Confirmation and Standard/Premium tier required.

Instructions

Create a flight alert on your AeroAPI account. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one (unless the server sets MCP_CONFIRM_ELICITATION=off); otherwise the first call returns a preview of the request (method, path, body) and a confirmToken, makes NO network call, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Requires a Standard or Premium AeroAPI tier (the free Personal tier returns 401).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
etaNoNotify on ETA changes
holdNoNotify on hold
filedNoNotify when a flight plan is filed
identNoFlight ident / designator to watch (e.g. UAL123)
originNoOrigin airport code filter
arrivalNoNotify on arrival
divertedNoNotify on diversion
end_dateNoISO-8601 date the alert expires
cancelledNoNotify on cancellation
departureNoNotify on departure
max_weeklyNoCap on notifications per week
start_dateNoISO-8601 date the alert becomes active
destinationNoDestination airport code filter
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.
aircraft_typeNoICAO aircraft type filter (e.g. B738)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / ident / pattern
      Previous value: -"^[A-Za-z0-9.-]+$"New value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9.-]*$"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. 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"
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, but the description adds substantially more: a user-confirmation step, the fact that phase 1 makes NO network call and only returns a preview plus confirmToken, that a repeat call with the token is what actually proceeds, and the tier-based 401 failure mode. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a mutating call.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the confirmation and tier details follow in a logical order. The confirmation sentence is long and clause-dense, but each clause (elicitation off switch, preview contents, token semantics) carries actionable information rather than filler.

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 15-parameter, no-required-field, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the safety flow, the prerequisite tier, and the failure mode, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits what happens after creation (no output schema exists, so return shape is unaddressed) and any rate-limit or uniqueness behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 15 parameters individually documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states (even confirmToken's guidance is duplicated in the schema). Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Create a flight alert') on a named account, so an agent immediately knows this is the alert-creation tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with fa_update_alert, fa_list_alerts, or fa_delete_alert, but the verb makes the distinction inferable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives strong conditional guidance about the confirmation flow (elicitation-supported clients vs. the two-step confirmToken fallback) and a hard prerequisite (Standard/Premium tier; free Personal returns 401). It never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as fa_update_alert for an existing alert, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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