Skip to main content
Glama

Save Current Flight

msfs_save_flight

Save the current Microsoft Flight Simulator flight to a .FLT file, verifying the save completes before returning. Avoids false success by checking the file on disk and waiting for SimConnect to become responsive again.

Instructions

Save the current flight to a .FLT file.

Capture a known state so a later msfs_load_flight call can restore it. Refuses to replace an existing file unless overwrite=True.

The library's sm.save_flight() ends with an unconditional return False, so its return value says nothing about success -- this checks whether the file was actually written instead. Its body also reads the file straight back (flight_to_dic) immediately after issuing an asynchronous FlightSave; if MSFS has not finished writing yet, that read-back can raise rather than return False. Both a clean return and a raised exception are followed by the same polling existence check below, since the file on disk is the only signal either path can be trusted to leave behind.

Does not return once the file appears, either. MSFS keeps SimConnect entirely unresponsive for a further ~14s (measured live) while it actually finishes the save; this waits that out too, bounded, so a caller never gets status: "ok" while the sim still cannot answer anything -- see _wait_for_sim_responsive's docstring for the full measurement and why the wait is structured the way it is.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path for the .FLT file to write
titleYesFlight title shown in MSFS
overwriteNoReplace the file at `path` if one already exists there
descriptionNoFlight description

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses non-obvious library quirks: save_flight() unconditionally returns False, an immediate read-back can raise, success is verified by polling the file, and MSFS may remain unresponsive for ~14 seconds. These details far exceed what the annotations provide and help the agent interpret status correctly.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, and the later paragraphs contain valuable implementation caveats. However, the level of internal library detail is dense and could be tightened without losing essential guidance.

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?

Given the 100% parameter coverage, the annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: error behavior, overwrite safety, waiting semantics, and success signaling. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the overwrite parameter's meaning ('Refuses to replace an existing file unless overwrite=True') but does not add much semantic detail beyond that.

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 names the specific action ('Save the current flight to a .FLT file'), identifies the file format, and explains that the state is captured for a later msfs_load_flight call. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as msfs_load_flight and msfs_load_flight_plan.

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 explicitly states the tool's use case—persisting a known flight state—and references the companion load tool. It also conveys overwrite behavior, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives to avoid.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/robin24/simconnect-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server