flightaware-mcp

fa_get_aircraft_owner

Read-only

Identify an aircraft's registered owner by tail number. Enter a registration to get ownership details.

Instructions

Get the registered owner of an aircraft by tail number / registration (e.g. N12345).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ident": "<ident>"
    },
    "name": "fa_get_aircraft_owner"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	No	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.
`ident`	Yes	Aircraft registration / tail number (e.g. N12345)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.2Oct 16, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / ident / pattern
```
Previous value: -"^[A-Za-z0-9.-]+$"New value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9.-]*$"
```

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0Sep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2Sep 10, 2026

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"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on auth requirements, best-effort/possibly-missing owner data, rate limits, or error behavior for an unrecognized tail number.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and the input format, zero filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably terse enough that a little more context would not have hurt.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, this is close to sufficient. However, with no output schema in existence, the description could state what comes back (owner name, address, etc.) and whether owner data may be absent, which it does not.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the fairly detailed view enum. The description's 'tail number / registration (e.g. N12345)' merely echoes the ident schema text and does not explain the compact/full view tradeoff.

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?

States a specific verb + resource (get the registered owner of an aircraft) and names the key input (tail number / registration with an N-number example). It is clearly distinguishable from the flight-, airport-, operator-, and alert-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when you have a tail number and want the owning entity. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, no prerequisite/permission notes, and no mention of what happens for an unregistered or unknown ident.

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