Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_get_flight_route

Read-only

Retrieve the decoded route of fixes and waypoints for a specific flight using its FlightAware flight ID. Ideal for analyzing flight paths and navigation details.

Instructions

Get the decoded route (fixes/waypoints) for a specific flight by fa_flight_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesfa_flight_id of the flight
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. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The 'decoded' qualifier adds a slight behavioral note that the raw route is decoded into fixes/waypoints, but the description does not disclose edge-case behavior such as what happens for an unknown fa_flight_id or a flight without a published route.

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 declarative sentence with zero filler: the verb is front-loaded, the resource is specific, and the key identifier appears at the end. Every word contributes meaning.

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 low-complexity read-only lookup with a rich schema (100% param coverage) and safety annotations, the package covers purpose, parameter semantics, and expected return shape ('fixes/waypoints'). The only real gap is sibling differentiation, which is a description-level omission rather than a failure of the overall context.

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 `view` description is unusually thorough (compact vs full, what compact strips, no field projection). The tool description only names 'fa_flight_id', which links the parameter to the purpose but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('decoded route'), and an access path ('by fa_flight_id'). The parenthetical '(fixes/waypoints)' clarifies the data type well enough to distinguish it from track/position/history siblings, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over the many flight-related siblings (fa_get_flight_track, fa_get_flight_position, fa_get_flight_history, fa_get_flight_map). No alternatives are named and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated; the agent must infer applicability solely from the word 'route'.

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