Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_get_airport

Read-only

Retrieve airport details by ICAO, IATA, or LID code. Choose compact or full response to get essential or complete information.

Instructions

Get details for an airport by code (ICAO like KJFK, IATA like JFK, or LID).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAirport code (ICAO/IATA/LID)
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.

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. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the input format, such as clarifying that the tool returns 'details' but without specifying the response structure or error behavior. Given the annotations cover the main safety and data assumptions, this is adequate but not rich.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and input format. There is no redundant information, and it achieves maximum clarity with minimal words.

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 tool with only two parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the required input format and implies the return type ('details'). However, it does not mention the optional 'view' parameter or what fields are included, though these are covered in the schema. Given the tool's simplicity, this is 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% with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'id' as 'Airport code (ICAO/IATA/LID)' and 'view' with a detailed explanation of compact/full behavior. The description repeats the code formats with examples (KJFK, JFK) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for full 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 description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'airport', and the input method 'by code (ICAO like KJFK, IATA like JFK, or LID)'. This unambiguously identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fa_list_airports (listing) or fa_resolve_airport (code resolution).

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 implies the use case (retrieve airport details by code) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as fa_get_airport_flights or fa_get_airport_weather. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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