Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_delete_alert

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a FlightAware flight alert by ID after user confirmation; Standard or Premium AeroAPI tier required.

Instructions

Delete a flight alert by id. 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
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description adds a lot on top: the confirmation flow, that phase 1 makes NO network call, the confirmToken replay requirement, the ability to disable elicitation via MCP_CONFIRM_ELICITATION, and the 401 failure mode on the free tier. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive 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?

Front-loaded with the verb+resource, then layered with the confirmation and tier caveats. Dense but every clause carries information; the environment-variable references add slight reading overhead.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, it covers the safety profile, the confirmation protocol, the phase-1 return shape (method, path, body, confirmToken) and the tier requirement. It does not describe the success response of the actual deletion, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's own descriptions already explain both 'id' and the 'confirmToken' contract in detail. The description reinforces the two-phase model but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a flight alert by id'), which cleanly separates it from fa_create_alert, fa_update_alert, fa_get_alert and fa_list_alerts. An agent knows immediately this is the destructive alert operation.

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?

Gives rich conditional guidance on how to invoke it (confirmation prompt vs. two-step preview fallback) and states the required AeroAPI tier, so the agent knows the prerequisites. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, but for a delete tool the usage context is clear.

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