Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_search_flights

Read-only

Search live airborne flights with a simple query string to filter by airline, altitude, location, and other criteria. Retrieve real-time flight data matching specific flight parameters.

Instructions

Search airborne flights using AeroAPI's simplified query syntax — a single string of "-key value" pairs. Keys: -prefix -type -idents -identOrReg -airline -destination -origin -originOrDestination -aboveAltitude -belowAltitude -aboveGroundspeed -belowGroundspeed -latlong "MINLAT MINLON MAXLAT MAXLON" -filter {ga|airline}. Example: -airline UAL -belowAltitude 30000

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.
queryYesSimplified "-key value" search string (max 1000 bytes)
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

B3.4/5.0
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 external-data profile is covered. The description adds that results are limited to currently airborne flights (an instantaneous-state trait) but says nothing about billing implications, result freshness/latency, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already notes for max_pages. Adequate but thin.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the necessary key enumeration and a concrete example. Given that the schema does not document the query grammar, the key list earns its space; the dash-prefixed list is dense but readable.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the schema's view param explains response shaping, and the description fully covers query construction, which is the hard part of calling this tool. The main gap is that it never positions itself against fa_search_flights_advanced or the position/history search siblings, which matters given how many similar tools exist.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the schema's own description of the required 'query' param is minimal ('Simplified "-key value" search string'), so the description carries real weight by enumerating every supported key and giving a worked example. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured field. Only the latlong sub-grammar and -filter values are lightly specified.

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 and resource with scope: 'Search airborne flights'. The word 'airborne' usefully narrows it to live in-flight traffic, distinguishing it from airport/operator/history siblings. However, it never contrasts itself with the closely named fa_search_flights_advanced or fa_search_flight_positions, so the sibling boundary is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no routing to alternatives. The most relevant sibling, fa_search_flights_advanced, is never mentioned, so an agent cannot tell which search tool to pick. Only the implicit 'airborne' scoping hints at usage.

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