Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_resolve_airport

Read-only

Resolve ambiguous airport codes (ICAO, IATA, LID) to a single canonical FlightAware identifier for AeroAPI use. Requires Standard or Premium AeroAPI tier.

Instructions

Resolve an airport code to its canonical AeroAPI identifier (and equivalents). NOTE: requires a Standard or Premium AeroAPI tier — the free Personal tier returns 401.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAirport code (ICAO/IATA/LID) to canonicalize
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.
id_typeNoDisambiguate how `id` is interpreted

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. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already in annotations, the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the tier requirement and the specific 401 failure mode, informing an agent that a 401 is an expected eligibility outcome rather than a tool malfunction. This is a meaningful disclosure for a tool with auth-dependent behavior.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the core function is front-loaded, and the operational constraint follows as a clearly marked NOTE. Every word earns its place; the structure makes the key facts instantly scannable.

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 3-param, 1-required resolution tool with fully documented params and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose and the key failure mode. The main gap is that 'equivalents' is undefined and there is no output schema, leaving the response shape underspecified for an agent trying to interpret the result. openWorldHint() mitigates this somewhat.

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%: id, view, and id_type each carry descriptive schema text, including enum meanings and the compact/full response-shape difference. The description itself contributes no parameter details, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Resolve') with a specific resource ('airport code') and a concrete outcome ('canonical AeroAPI identifier (and equivalents)'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling lookups like fa_get_airport or fa_resolve_flight, which operate on different resources. The scope is unambiguous even before inspecting the schema.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings — e.g., use fa_get_airport when the ID is already canonical, or fa_resolve_flignt for flight identifiers. The only usage-relevant note is the AeroAPI tier eligibility (Standard/Premium required, free tier returns 401), which is an operational constraint rather than an alternative-routing rule. An agent must infer selection criteria from the name 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