Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
flightaware-mcp

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_list_airports

Read-only

List airports known to AeroAPI with cursor-based paging, choosing compact or full response fields.

Instructions

List airports known to AeroAPI (paged). Use the cursor to page through.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
cursorNoPaging cursor: the cursor query parameter of a previous response's links.next (passing the whole links.next value also works)
max_pagesNoMax pages to fetch, 1-20 (AeroAPI default: 1). Capped at 20 since AeroAPI bills per page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.2
    • 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)"
  2. 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"
  3. 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"
+}
  4. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.2
    • 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
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 and open-world profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paged; it says nothing about page size, per-page billing, or response contents. Because max_pages billing behavior lives in the schema rather than the description, this adds modest value over structured data.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the resource and the paging trait. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough to leave useful routing information unsaid.

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?

With no output schema, the description never indicates what an airport record or a page of results contains, nor how many records roughly come back. Annotations plus the rich parameter schema cover enough to call it correctly, but the return-shape gap keeps it at minimum-viable.

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% and all three parameters (view, cursor, max_pages) carry detailed inline descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's single mention of the cursor duplicates what the schema already explains in more depth.

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?

"List airports known to AeroAPI" gives a specific verb+resource that is clearly the enumeration counterpart to fa_get_airport, fa_resolve_airport and fa_get_nearby_airports. It does not explicitly name how it differs from those siblings, but the plural list scope is unambiguous.

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 only guidance is "Use the cursor to page through," which is an invocation mechanic the cursor schema already covers. There is no statement of when to reach for this bulk listing versus fa_get_airport, fa_resolve_airport, or fa_get_nearby_airports, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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