Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_get_airport_flight_counts

Read-only

Retrieve current flight counts for an airport by code, showing departed, enroute, scheduled arrivals, and scheduled departures.

Instructions

Get current flight counts at an airport: { departed, enroute, scheduled_arrivals, scheduled_departures }.

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 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"
+}
  2. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile and response extensibility. The description adds a useful behavioral detail by listing the four count categories and stating the data is 'current,' but it does not discuss data freshness, unavailable-airport behavior, or whether scheduled counts refer to the current day. 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?

One tight sentence with no filler. The verb, scope, and response keys are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 simple read-only tool with complete parameter schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers the operation and the expected response shape despite lacking an output schema. The main gap is explicit sibling differentiation, but that is already addressed in the usage dimension, so the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 id and view both fully documented including pattern, enum, and semantics. The description does not need to explain parameters further, and it does not, so the baseline score of 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 description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('an airport'), and it enumerates the exact return categories (departed, enroute, scheduled_arrivals, scheduled_departures), so an agent can tell this is an aggregate-counts tool rather than a flight-list or map tool. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as fa_get_airport_flights, fa_count_flights, or fa_get_airport_delays. The only usage signal is the tool name and generic 'at an airport,' leaving selection to inference.

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