flightaware-mcp

fa_get_operator_flights

Read-only

Fetch an operator's flight board by ICAO/IATA code, covering all flights or filtered by arrivals, departures, enroute, or scheduled. Use for airline flight status overviews.

Instructions

Get a flight board for an operator (airline): all flights, or arrivals/departures/enroute/scheduled.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "fa_get_operator_flights"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Operator code (ICAO/IATA)
`view`	No	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.
`board`	No	Which board to fetch (default: all)	all
`cursor`	No	Paging cursor: the cursor query parameter of a previous response's links.next (passing the whole links.next value also works)
`max_pages`	No	Max pages to fetch, 1-20 (AeroAPI default: 1). Capped at 20 since AeroAPI bills per page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.2Oct 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / cursor / description

Previous value: -"Opaque paging cursor from a previous response's links.next"New value: +"Paging cursor: the cursor query parameter of a previous response's links.next (passing the whole links.next value also works)"

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0Sep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2Sep 10, 2026

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"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.2Jul 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / max_pages / description

Previous value: -"Max pages to fetch (AeroAPI default: 1)"New value: +"Max pages to fetch, 1-20 (AeroAPI default: 1). Capped at 20 since AeroAPI bills per page."

changedInput schema / properties / max_pages / maximum
```
Previous value: -9007199254740991New value: +20
```

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the name: no mention of per-page billing/rate constraints, pagination semantics, or what the board payload resembles.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is terse, but every word earns its place and nothing is wasteful.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is thin on routing guidance, but the schema itself is thorough (100% coverage, enums, paging and billing notes), so an agent can call it correctly. It is adequate rather than complete.

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%, including rich enum and paging documentation, so the schema carries all parameter meaning. The description only restates the board options already enumerated in the schema, adding no new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (flight board) with the actor (operator/airline) and the range of board variants. This helps distinguish it from fa_get_airport_flights and generic fa_get_flights, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 says what boards are available but never states when to use this tool over siblings like fa_get_flights, fa_search_flights, or fa_get_airport_flights, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied through the board enum.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.