Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_set_alerts_endpoint

Idempotent

Set the webhook URL where FlightAware AeroAPI delivers flight alert notifications. Includes a confirmation step to ensure changes are approved before applying.

Instructions

Set the delivery (webhook) endpoint AeroAPI POSTs alert notifications to. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview of the request (method, path, body) and a confirmToken, makes NO network call, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Requires a Standard or Premium AeroAPI tier (the free Personal tier returns 401).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesHTTPS URL AeroAPI will POST alert payloads to
formatNoDelivery payload format
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  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. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing the critical two-step confirmation behavior, that the first call makes NO network request, that a confirmToken is returned and must be reused, and that the free tier returns 401. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs before invoking a mutating endpoint.

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?

The description is dense but not bloated: the main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently covers confirmation, the no-network first phase, token semantics, and tier constraints. Slightly long due to necessary caveats, but every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating what phase-one returns (method, path, body preview plus confirmToken), how to complete the operation, when the two-step flow applies, and the authentication failure mode. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly in both confirmed and fallback modes.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents url, format, and confirmToken in detail. The description reinforces the url's purpose and the confirmToken's role, but it adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema—so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the delivery (webhook) endpoint AeroAPI POSTs alert notifications to.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the read-oriented sibling fa_get_alerts_endpoint and from alert CRUD tools like fa_create_alert or fa_update_alert.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear operational context: confirmation-first behavior, the two-step fallback flow, the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE dependency, and the Standard/Premium tier requirement with a 401 on the free tier. It lacks an explicit 'use fa_get_alerts_endpoint instead to read the current endpoint' exclusion, but the context is otherwise unambiguous.

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