nomadpoint

create_flight

Add a flight to a trip.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seat`	No
`notes`	No
`price`	No
`currency`	No
`travelers`	No	Member user ids this is for (from list_journey_members). Omit for everyone — that's the norm.
`journey_id`	Yes
`booking_url`	No
`cabin_class`	No
`airline_code`	No	IATA airline code, e.g. 'TP' — find it with search_airlines
`airline_name`	No
`flight_number`	No
`arrival_datetime`	No	ISO-8601 datetime, e.g. 2026-08-01T14:30:00Z
`arrival_terminal`	No
`is_onward_ticket`	No	Mark it as the proof-of-onward-travel ticket for an entry requirement
`confirmation_code`	No
`departure_datetime`	Yes	ISO-8601 datetime, e.g. 2026-08-01T14:30:00Z
`departure_terminal`	No
`arrival_airport_code`	Yes	IATA code, e.g. 'NRT' — find it with search_airports
`departure_airport_code`	Yes	IATA code, e.g. 'JFK' — find it with search_airports

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description 'Add a flight' implies a write operation, consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it adds no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or validation behavior beyond what annotations already hint. No contradictions exist.

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 extremely concise and does not waste words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, lacking essential details for a tool with nearly 20 parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (19 params, 4 required, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how to use the fields, what constitutes a valid request, or what the response might look like, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool description provides no explanation of parameters. While some parameters have descriptions inline in the schema (e.g., departure_airport_code explains IATA codes), the description itself adds no value to understanding the 19 parameters or their relationships.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action of adding a flight to a trip, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like creating activities or accommodations, though it could be more explicit about what constitutes a flight.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_flight or delete_flight, or any contextual scenarios. The description lacks any indication of prerequisites or typical usage cases.

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

All nomadpoint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., create_flight vs create_activity vs create_stay), and descriptions clarify overlaps like stay vs accommodation. The only potential confusion (create_activity covers travel legs) is explicitly explained, so misselection is unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using standard verbs: create, delete, get, list, search, set, update, add, remove, leave. Nouns are consistently singular and descriptive (passport, journey, stay, flight, accommodation). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count4/5

With 36 tools, the count is higher than typical, but the server covers a wide domain: journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas, documents, preferences, and sharing. Each entity has CRUD operations plus search and status, so the count is justified, though bordering on heavy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD for every entity (journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas), user profile access (get_me), search utilities, sharing controls (join links, member management), and preferences. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps; even edge cases like deleting bookings before stays are handled.

Resources

Need Help?