Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

flightaware-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fa_update_alert

DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing flight alert by replacing its configuration, including monitored flight identifiers, airports, dates, and notification event settings.

Instructions

Update an existing flight alert (replaces its configuration). 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
idYesAlert id to update
etaNoNotify on ETA changes
holdNoNotify on hold
filedNoNotify when a flight plan is filed
identNoFlight ident / designator to watch (e.g. UAL123)
originNoOrigin airport code filter
arrivalNoNotify on arrival
divertedNoNotify on diversion
end_dateNoISO-8601 date the alert expires
cancelledNoNotify on cancellation
departureNoNotify on departure
max_weeklyNoCap on notifications per week
start_dateNoISO-8601 date the alert becomes active
destinationNoDestination airport code filter
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.
aircraft_typeNoICAO aircraft type filter (e.g. B738)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / ident / pattern
      Previous value: -"^[A-Za-z0-9.-]+$"New value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9.-]*$"
  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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations covering the safety profile (destructive/idempotent/openWorld), the description adds substantial context the structured fields cannot: the two-phase confirmation flow, the elicitation-vs-confirmToken fallback, the fact that the first call makes NO network call and only returns a preview, and the Standard/Premium tier requirement (401 on free tier). This is exactly the behavioral disclosure that helps an agent call it safely.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is truly wasted given the confirmation complexity, but the single dense paragraph with nested parentheticals (MCP_CONFIRM_ELICITATION, MCP_CONFIRM_MODE) is heavier than it needs to be and could be broken into shorter statements.

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 destructive 16-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation protocol, no-op first call, tier gate, and replacement semantics. It is close to complete; it could be slightly clearer on how unspecified fields are handled on replacement, but 'replaces its configuration' largely covers that.

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% across all 16 parameters, so the schema already documents id, confirmToken, filters, and notification flags in detail. The description adds framing for confirmToken's lifecycle but no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing flight alert') and adds a semantic qualifier ('replaces its configuration') that distinguishes full-replacement behavior from a partial edit. An agent can separate it from fa_create_alert, fa_delete_alert, fa_get_alert, and fa_list_alerts on the action alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It establishes that the target must be an existing alert and adds tier/prerequisite context, but it never names an alternative sibling or states when NOT to use it (e.g. create vs update vs delete). Usage is implied by the verb rather than explicitly routed.

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