Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_get_flight_track

Read-only

Retrieve the position track (breadcrumb log) for any flight by its FlightAware ID, with options for compact or full views and estimated positions.

Instructions

Get the position track (breadcrumb log) 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.
include_estimated_positionsNoInclude estimated positions where actual data is missing

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

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 the description's 'Get' is consistent with that. The description adds the breadcrumb-log semantics, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as default handling of estimated positions, response size, or data freshness. It is not a contradiction, but it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource. The parenthetical adds precision without bloating the text. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with one required parameter, the combination of a clear description, rich schema documentation, and readOnly/openWorld annotations is largely complete. The main gap is not specifying how this differs from fa_get_flight_position or when the 'view' default matters, but those are minor relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the description itself gives no detail about 'view' or 'include_estimated_positions'. The schema's own descriptions are significantly more detailed than the tool description, and the description does not add parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb, resource, and key: 'Get the position track (breadcrumb log) for a specific flight by fa_flight_id.' The parenthetical 'breadcrumb log' helps distinguish it from a single current position. This is clear and unambiguous.

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 this is for a historical position trail, but it never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this over fa_get_flight_position, fa_get_flight_route, or fa_get_flight_map. No alternatives or exclusions are stated, so usage context must be inferred.

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