Skip to main content
Glama

fa_set_alerts_endpoint

DestructiveIdempotent

Configure the webhook URL where AeroAPI posts flight alert notifications, with a confirmation step to prevent accidental changes. Requires a Standard or Premium tier.

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 (unless the server sets MCP_CONFIRM_ELICITATION=off); 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesHTTPS URL AeroAPI will POST alert payloads to (https:// only)
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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Previous value: -"HTTPS URL AeroAPI will POST alert payloads to"New value: +"HTTPS URL AeroAPI will POST alert payloads to (https:// only)"
  2. 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"
      +}
  3. 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"
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the first call makes NO network call and returns a preview plus confirmToken, the repeat call is required to proceed, the elicitation toggle (MCP_CONFIRM_ELICITATION/MCP_CONFIRM_MODE) changes the flow, and the 401 tier gate. This is context the structured fields cannot convey.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the confirmation mechanics and the tier constraint in a logical order. The confirmation sentence is dense and parenthetical-heavy, but every clause carries actionable information rather than filler.

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 describing the phase-1 response contents (method, path, body, confirmToken) and the conditions under which it is returned. Auth/tier requirements and the mutation's confirmation gate are both covered, leaving nothing essential an agent needs to call it safely.

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%, so the required `url`, the `format` enum, and the `confirmToken` contract are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the token's purpose ('only a repeat call with that token proceeds') but adds no format, constraint, or default information beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Set the delivery (webhook) endpoint AeroAPI POSTs alert notifications to.' This clearly separates it from the sibling getter fa_get_alerts_endpoint and the alert CRUD tools (fa_create_alert, fa_update_alert), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

It gives strong conditional guidance on the confirmation path (elicitation-capable client vs two-step confirmToken fallback) and states the tier prerequisite (Standard/Premium; free Personal returns 401). It never explicitly names an alternative tool to use instead, so it stops short of the 5-level when/when-not/alternatives triangle.

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