Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_delete_alert

Idempotent

Delete an existing flight alert by its ID. Requires user confirmation before the alert is removed, ensuring no accidental deletions.

Instructions

Delete a flight alert by id. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; 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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAlert id to delete
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
+}
  2. 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"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the two-phase confirmation behavior in detail: the first call returns a preview and confirmToken with no network call, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds. It also warns about the 401 on the free Personal tier, adding valuable context beyond the annotations without contradicting readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=true.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and confirmation mechanics plus tier requirements follow in compact, well-organized prose. Every sentence contributes essential operational information without redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive delete operation, the description covers the confirmation protocol, the no-op first call, the token-based second call, and the tier limitation. Together with the detailed schema, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool safely and correctly. No critical behavioral gap remains.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including a thorough explanation of confirmToken and its restrictions. The description reinforces the role of id and the token flow but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate for this level of schema coverage.

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 opening sentence, 'Delete a flight alert by id,' uses a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like fa_list_alerts, fa_get_alert, fa_create_alert, and fa_update_alert. No sibling competes for this delete action.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly implies this tool should be used when an existing flight alert must be removed by its id. It also provides important preconditions: confirmation is required and a Standard/Premium tier is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the delete semantics are unambiguous from context.

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