Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_get_flight_track

Read-only

Retrieve a flight's position track (breadcrumb log) using its fa_flight_id, with optional estimated positions and compact or full response views.

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 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) since it describes a 'Get' operation. It adds minor context by calling it a 'breadcrumb log,' implying a sequence of positions. However, it doesn't disclose response ordering, limits, or error behavior. Given the annotations already cover read-only and open-world semantics, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 core purpose with no filler. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations. This is a model of concise specification.

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 tool with three parameters (one required), an enum, and no output schema, the description gives a clear purpose but lacks details about the response format (e.g., array of positions, ordering). Since there is no output schema, the description could have mentioned the structure of the track to aid the agent. The schema covers parameters well, but the response shape is left to inference.

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 each parameter (id, view, include_estimated_positions) having detailed descriptions, including the nuanced explanation of 'view' modes. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (position track/breadcrumb log), and the key identifier (fa_flight_id). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like fa_get_flight_position (single position) and fa_get_flight_route (route) by focusing on the breadcrumb track. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as fa_get_flight_position or fa_get_flight_route. It doesn't mention alternatives, exclusions, or context (e.g., 'use this for historical position history'). The agent must infer usage from the name and description 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