A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceGive AI agents the ability to search private jets, compare aircraft, get quotes, and submit charter requests through natural language.
7
13
MIT
Villiers Charter
by ai.villiers
Server Details
Instant private jet charter price estimates and confirmed live quotes, worldwide.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.5/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct, clearly defined purpose: estimates, confirmed pricing requests, status checks, and empty-leg searches. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_, request_, search_), making it easy to predict tool behavior from the name alone.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools precisely cover the core capabilities needed for a private jet charter assistant: estimation, confirmation, status tracking, and empty-leg deals. No tool feels redundant or missing.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the primary workflow (estimate → request confirmation → check status) and adds empty-leg search. However, the actual booking is handled externally via email, and there is no tool to modify or cancel requests.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_confirmation_statusARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
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 |
Tool Definition Quality
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_estimateARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
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 | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
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.
request_jet_confirmationADestructiveInspect
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 | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pets | No | Travelling with pets? (optional) | |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
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_legsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
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 destination or region. Each result links to the specific flight to view and enquire.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 50) | |
| 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 |
| summary | No | |
| next_step | No | |
| empty_legs | No | |
| total_available | No | Total matching empty legs available |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. Description adds context about discounts and result links. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, no fluff.
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 annotations, schema, output schema, and usage guidelines, the description is fully adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 mentions optional filters but adds little beyond schema.
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 clearly states it searches for available empty-leg flights and distinguishes from sibling tools (get_confirmation_status, get_jet_estimate, request_jet_confirmation) which are about confirmation and 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 says 'Use this when a user wants cheap private jet deals, is flexible on dates, or asks about discounted or empty-leg flights'. Provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceBook 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+ property91MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceEnables flight planning and aviation operations through intelligent airport resolution, great-circle route calculation, and aircraft performance estimation. Supports 28,000+ airports worldwide and 190+ aircraft types for comprehensive flight planning via natural language.464MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables pilots to assemble a preflight briefing per 14 CFR §91.103 by fetching weather, airport info, aircraft performance, fuel estimates, alternates, and NOTAMs.686AGPL 3.0