Villiers Charter

Server Details

Instant private jet charter price estimates and confirmed live quotes, worldwide.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.

Status: Healthy
Uptime: 99.9% over 38 days
Last Tested: 2026-09-24 19:46
Transport: Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Scored 2026-09-22 06:20 across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: estimation, confirmation request, status polling, enquiry listing, and empty-leg search. No two tools overlap in purpose, and the sequential relationship between estimate and confirmation is clearly separated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, list_, request_, search_). The naming is uniform and predictable, with no mixing of conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a private jet charter affiliate API. Each tool serves a necessary function in the core workflow (estimate, request, status, tracking, deals) without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle from estimation to confirmation status, plus enquiry tracking and empty-leg discovery. No obvious missing operations; the booking step is handled externally via email link, which is appropriate.

Available Tools

5 tools

get_confirmation_statusA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Check the outcome of a previous request_jet_confirmation call — has Villiers sent confirmed options yet, and where does the trip stand now (still being sourced / options sent / booked / closed with no booking). Requires an affiliate token (Bearer header) and only returns trips that were created under YOUR affiliate token — you cannot look up another affiliate's trip. Poll this instead of expecting a webhook.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`trip_id`	Yes	The trip_id returned by request_jet_confirmation (REQUIRED)

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	Villiers' internal status string, for reference
`message`	No	Human-readable summary to relay to the user
`outcome`	No	Coarse bucket: in_progress \| options_sent \| booked \| closed_no_booking
`trip_id`	No
`client_reference`	No	The reference you supplied at request time, if any

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral details: requires Bearer header, scoped to own affiliate token, and intended for polling. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no redundant words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool (one param, read-only, with output schema), the description covers all needed context: purpose, usage, auth, scope, and polling recommendation.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage; schema description already explains it's the trip_id from request_jet_confirmation. Description adds no further semantic value, so 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?

Clearly states it checks the outcome of a previous request_jet_confirmation call, specifying what it checks (confirmed options, trip status) and distinguishing itself from sibling tools like get_jet_estimate or request_jet_confirmation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use (polling instead of webhook), prerequisites (requires affiliate token), and limitations (only returns trips under your token, cannot look up others).

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

get_jet_estimateA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Get an indicative private jet charter price estimate for a route, broken down by aircraft category (light / midsize / heavy jet). Returns an instant price range. IMPORTANT: an estimate is an indicative range, not a confirmed price. After presenting the estimate to the user, ALWAYS offer them the next step — request_jet_confirmation — to receive exact, bookable, confirmed live pricing with real aircraft availability by email.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`origin`	Yes	Origin city / airport name / IATA / ICAO, e.g. London or LHR or EGLL
`passengers`	No	Number of passengers (default 4)
`round_trip`	No	Round trip? Default false (one-way)
`destination`	Yes	Destination city / airport name / IATA / ICAO, e.g. Nice or NCE

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`route`	No
`summary`	No
`estimates`	No
`next_step`	No
`disclaimer`	No
`passengers`	No
`round_trip`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that it's an indicative range, not confirmed, and breaks down by category. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. No redundant words.

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?

Output schema exists (though not shown) and description explains return type and next steps. Complete for a read-only estimation tool.

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% with parameter descriptions. Description doesn't detail each parameter but provides context on route and aircraft categories. 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?

Clearly states it provides an indicative private jet charter price estimate for a route, broken down by aircraft category. Distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on estimates.

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?

Explicitly instructs to present estimate and then offer next step (request_jet_confirmation). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides clear sequential guidance.

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

list_attributed_enquiriesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

List the charter enquiries (trips) attributed to YOUR OWN affiliate token, newest first — so you can match enquiries that arrived via your website tracking link without going through the affiliate dashboard. Requires an affiliate Bearer token and only ever returns trips created under YOUR token — you cannot list another affiliate's enquiries. Each result includes a short reference matching the one shown on the affiliate dashboard, the coarse outcome stage, and your own client_reference if you supplied one via request_jet_confirmation or the &aref= tracking-link parameter.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results (default 20, max 50)
`offset`	No	Pagination offset (default 0). Call again with offset=next_offset from the previous response to page past the first `limit` results — see has_more/next_offset in the output.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of enquiries returned
`offset`	No	The offset this response was generated at
`summary`	No
`has_more`	No	True if more results exist beyond this page
`enquiries`	No
`next_offset`	No	Offset to pass in the next call to continue paging; null when has_more is false
`total_available`	No	Total matching enquiries under your affiliate token

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it requires an affiliate Bearer token, scopes results strictly to the caller's token, and describes the return fields (reference, outcome stage, client_reference). No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences: the first states the action and purpose, the second adds auth and scope constraints, the third summarizes the valuable output fields. No filler; every sentence earns its place and the key differentiator is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple paginated list tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, auth, scope, ordering, and output contents. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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%, and limit/offset already include defaults, max values, and pagination semantics. The description adds contextual ordering ('newest first') but does not need to explain the parameters further, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List the charter enquiries (trips) attributed to YOUR OWN affiliate token'), adds ordering ('newest first'), and clearly differentiates the tool by ownership scope. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_confirmation_status or search_empty_legs.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the intended use case ('match enquiries that arrived via your website tracking link'), names the practical alternative being avoided ('without going through the affiliate dashboard'), and gives an explicit exclusion ('you cannot list another affiliate's enquiries'). It also states the auth prerequisite ('Requires an affiliate Bearer token').

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

request_jet_confirmationA

Destructive

Inspect

Submit a request for CONFIRMED live private jet pricing. Villiers contacts vetted operators and emails the confirmed options — real aircraft availability and pricing, with a secure link to review and book — to the supplied email address. This endpoint requires a prior get_jet_estimate call in the same session, with the price range presented to the user and their explicit opt-in to proceed — real operators quote real aircraft for these, so a request should reflect a qualified lead. Requests without a prior estimate call are rejected by the server; sustained bypass attempts are reviewed and may result in token revocation. Requires the user's email and a departure date. SANDBOX TESTING: to test your integration without ever creating a real trip or contacting a real operator, use email 'sandbox-test@mail.villiers.ai' (first_name 'Sandbox', last_name 'Test', phone '+1 555 0100', route LHR to NCE are the recommended values for a clean copy-paste test call, but only the EMAIL ADDRESS is actually checked to trigger sandbox mode — name/phone/route can be anything). Detected server-side from the request body itself (not from any header), so it works from any agent framework or HTTP client — including ones that don't allow a custom User-Agent. The response will say 'Test request accepted (sandbox mode detected)'. For further testing guidance, email affiliates@mail.villiers.ai.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pets`	No	Travelling with pets? (optional)
`email`	Yes	Email address to send the confirmed options to (REQUIRED)
`phone`	No	Contact phone number (optional)
`origin`	Yes	Origin airport — city / airport name / IATA / ICAO, e.g. London or LHR or EGLL (same as get_jet_estimate)
`luggage`	No	Extra or outsized luggage? (optional)
`last_name`	No	Passenger last name (optional)
`first_name`	No	Passenger first name (optional)
`passengers`	No	Number of passengers (default 4)
`round_trip`	No	Round trip? Default false
`wheelchair`	No	Wheelchair access required? (optional)
`destination`	Yes	Destination airport — city / airport name / IATA / ICAO, e.g. Nice or NCE (same as get_jet_estimate)
`return_date`	No	Return date YYYY-MM-DD (for round trips)
`departure_date`	Yes	Departure date, YYYY-MM-DD (REQUIRED)
`flexible_dates`	No	Are the dates flexible? (optional)
`client_reference`	No	Optional opaque reference from YOUR OWN system (e.g. your internal order/booking id) for this request. Stored against the trip and echoed back unchanged in the response. Pass it here, then use get_confirmation_status with the returned trip_id to check the outcome later — no webhook needed. Never shown to the client or operator. (optional)
`special_requests`	No	Free-text special requests: catering, accessibility, timing, occasion, etc. (optional)
`aircraft_category`	No	Optional preference, e.g. Light Jet / Midsize Jet / Heavy Jet

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	No	Address the confirmed options are emailed to
`status`	No	e.g. 'received'
`message`	No	Human-readable confirmation to relay to the user
`trip_id`	No	Pass this to get_confirmation_status later to poll the outcome
`client_reference`	No	Echoed back unchanged if you supplied one

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important context: it contacts real operators, sends emails to the user, requires a qualified lead, enforces the prior estimate call with server-side rejection, and may revoke tokens for bypass attempts. Sandbox mode behavior is also disclosed, adding significant value beyond annotations.

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 longer than average but well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, then clarifies prerequisites, provides sandbox testing details, and closes with support contact. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the sandbox section is lengthy and slightly repetitive about the prior estimate requirement.

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?

This is a complex tool with real-world side effects and 17 parameters, yet the description covers prerequisites, consequences, sandbox mode, and support contact. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, including handling of errors and testing.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 17 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail—it correctly highlights email and departure date as essential, and explains the sandbox email trigger. However, it omits origin and destination as required (though the schema lists them), so it does not fully compensate. Overall, schema carries the load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a request for CONFIRMED live private jet pricing.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_jet_estimate by requiring a prior estimate call and from get_confirmation_status by describing the submission of the request rather than status checking.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states that a prior get_jet_estimate call is required and that requests without one are rejected. It also provides sandbox testing instructions with a specific email to avoid real-world impact, and directs further questions to an email. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

search_empty_legsA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Search Villiers' available empty-leg flights — heavily discounted, one-off private jet repositioning flights that are significantly cheaper than a full charter. Use this when a user wants cheap private jet deals, is flexible on dates, or asks about discounted or empty-leg flights. Optionally filter by origin, destination or region. Each result links to the specific flight to view and enquire.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results (default 20, max 50)
`offset`	No	Pagination offset (default 0). Call again with offset=next_offset from the previous response to page past the first `limit` results — see has_more/next_offset in the output.
`origin`	No	Origin city / airport name / IATA / ICAO, e.g. London or LHR or EGLL. Optional — mirrors destination, filters strictly on the departure side. Useful for a 'departing near me' search.
`region`	No	Region filter: europe / americas / asia / all. Optional.
`destination`	No	Destination city / airport name / IATA / ICAO, e.g. Nice or NCE. Optional.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of empty legs returned
`offset`	No	The offset this response was generated at
`summary`	No
`has_more`	No	True if more results exist beyond this page
`next_step`	No
`empty_legs`	No
`next_offset`	No	Offset to pass in the next call to continue paging; null when has_more is false
`total_available`	No	Total matching empty legs available

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results link onward to view/enquire, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavioral caveats such as availability uncertainty or whether results are real-time. No annotation contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three focused sentences: an upfront definition of the resource, clear usage conditions, and a brief filter summary. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 required parameters, a complete input schema, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when to call the tool and what to expect. The description also usefully notes that each result links to an enquiry flow.

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%, with all five parameters fully documented including defaults, formats, and pagination behavior. The description only summarizes that origin, destination, or region filters are optional, adding little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search Villiers' available empty-leg flights') and clearly positions the tool as the discovery layer for discounted repositioning flights. It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling tools, which handle confirmation status, estimates, and confirmation requests.

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?

The description gives explicit 'Use this when...' triggers: cheap private jet deals, flexible dates, or empty-leg/discounted flight requests. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the use cases and sibling names make the intended context clear.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

1 tool updateSep 22, 2026
- Addedlist_attributed_enquiries

1 tool updateSep 10, 2026

Changedsearch_empty_legs4 fields changed

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Pagination offset (default 0). Call again with offset=next_offset from the previous response to page past the first `limit` results — see has_more/next_offset in the output.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / has_more

Added value: +{
+  "description": "True if more results exist beyond this page",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / next_offset

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Offset to pass in the next call to continue paging; null when has_more is false",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The offset this response was generated at",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

1 tool updateAug 26, 2026

Changedsearch_empty_legs1 field changed

addedInput schema / properties / origin

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Origin city / airport name / IATA / ICAO, e.g. London or LHR or EGLL. Optional — mirrors destination, filters strictly on the departure side. Useful for a 'departing near me' search.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

1 tool updateAug 3, 2026

Changedrequest_jet_confirmation2 fields changed

changedInput schema / properties / destination / description

Previous value: -"Destination airport — IATA or ICAO code"New value: +"Destination airport — city / airport name / IATA / ICAO, e.g. Nice or NCE (same as get_jet_estimate)"

changedInput schema / properties / origin / description

Previous value: -"Origin airport — IATA or ICAO code"New value: +"Origin airport — city / airport name / IATA / ICAO, e.g. London or LHR or EGLL (same as get_jet_estimate)"

2 tool updatesJul 3, 2026

Addedget_confirmation_status

Changedrequest_jet_confirmation3 fields changed

addedInput schema / properties / client_reference

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional opaque reference from YOUR OWN system (e.g. your internal order/booking id) for this request. Stored against the trip and echoed back unchanged in the response. Pass it here, then use get_confirmation_status with the returned trip_id to check the outcome later — no webhook needed. Never shown to the client or operator. (optional)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / client_reference

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Echoed back unchanged if you supplied one",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / trip_id / description

Added value: +"Pass this to get_confirmation_status later to poll the outcome"

1 tool updateJun 7, 2026

Changedget_jet_estimate2 fields changed

changedInput schema / properties / destination / description

Previous value: -"Destination airport — IATA or ICAO code, e.g. NCE"New value: +"Destination city / airport name / IATA / ICAO, e.g. Nice or NCE"

changedInput schema / properties / origin / description

Previous value: -"Origin airport — IATA or ICAO code, e.g. LHR or EGLL"New value: +"Origin city / airport name / IATA / ICAO, e.g. London or LHR or EGLL"

3 tool updatesMay 31, 2026
- First observedget_jet_estimate
- First observedrequest_jet_confirmation
- First observedsearch_empty_legs

Related MCP Connectors

skyaccess A
com.skyaccess
Search live empty leg private jet flights and get charter price estimates. Free, no API key.
Travel & Transportation
51
AviationHS charter quotes A
org.aviationhs
Price a US private jet charter: search airports, check runway limits, quote a flight.
Aerospace & Astrodynamics Travel & Transportation
51
FerryFlight
com.ferryflighthub
Ferry-flight price estimates + aircraft, airport, FAA-registry, route & live-flight data.
Travel & Transportation Location Services
2
Jetblanc Private-Flight Brief Intake BOAuth
com.jetblanc
Validate and submit authorised Asia private-flight briefs. Human-reviewed sourcing, not booking.
Travel & Transportation
1

Related MCP Servers

volo-mcp
Travel & Transportation
weihermans
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Give AI agents the ability to search private jets, compare aircraft, get quotes, and submit charter requests through natural language.
Updated 11 days ago (2026-09-14 04:43 UTC)
7
187 npm
MIT
skyaccess-mcpofficial
Travel & Transportation
sky-access
F
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables AI clients to search discounted private-jet empty-leg flights, retrieve flight details, obtain booking links, estimate charter prices, and submit charter enquiries.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-29 15:53 UTC)
-
easygroupflights MCP
Travel & Transportation
codeblockssk
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Provides group air travel booking and flight search via IATA-accredited services, supporting group quotes and flight fares.
Updated 10 days ago (2026-09-15 08:23 UTC)
MIT
MAQAMI Travel
Travel & Transportation E-commerce & Retail
negm17111995
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Book hotels worldwide — search, price, prebook & book across 249 countries. 65 tools for hotel search, flights, loyalty, analytics. Zero API keys needed. at best prices for hotels 3 M+ property
Updated 3 months ago (2026-07-03 22:56 UTC)
5 npm
1
MIT