Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_get_operator

Read-only

Look up airline operator details by ICAO or IATA code.

Instructions

Get details for an operator (airline) by code (ICAO like UAL, or IATA like UA).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesOperator code (ICAO/IATA)
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

A4/5.0
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral disclosure beyond 'Get details'; it does not describe response characteristics, whether the returned data is normalized, or any caveats about open-world fields. No contradiction exists with 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a useful parenthetical about code formats. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 single-operator lookup, the description plus schema is nearly complete: both parameters are documented, annotations cover the read-only nature, and the code format is clarified. It is slightly incomplete because it provides no pointer to sibling operator tools and the lack of an output schema leaves return details unstated, but the core calling intent is well specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples ('UAL' vs 'UA') and clarifies that either ICAO or IATA is acceptable, reducing ambiguity for the required id parameter. The view parameter is already fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get details for an operator (airline) by code.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fa_list_operators, which lists operators, and fa_get_operator_flights, which returns flights for an operator. The ICAO/IATA clarification makes the target resource 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 phrase 'by code' implies the tool should be used when the caller already has an ICAO or IATA code and wants operator details. However, the description does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as using fa_list_operators to enumerate operators or fa_get_operator_flights for flight activity. Usage guidance is therefore mostly implied rather than explicit.

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