I Know The Pilot
Server Details
Find curated cheap flight and travel deals from Australia.
- 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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving details of a specific deal, listing cheap deals from a given airport, and searching deals by criteria. No overlap in functionality.
Tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but 'list_top_deals_from' is longer and includes a preposition, making it slightly inconsistent with the simpler 'get_deal' and 'search_deals'.
Three tools is well-scoped for a flight deals server. Each tool addresses a core user need without unnecessary additions.
The tool set covers the main use cases: viewing details, listing from airport, and searching. A minor gap is lack of a generic 'list all deals' function, but not critical for the domain.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_dealGet Deal DetailsARead-onlyInspect
Get full details for a specific flight deal including routes and airlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deal_id | Yes | The deal ID |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | No | URL to view and book the deal |
| title | No | Deal headline |
| routes | No | Flight routes available for this deal |
| deal_id | No | Unique deal identifier |
| summary | No | Brief description of the deal |
| airlines | No | Airline codes operating this deal |
| currency | No | Currency code (always AUD) |
| from_price | No | Starting price in AUD |
| expiry_date | No | Deal expiry date (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the response includes routes and airlines, which is helpful but not critical 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, annotations, and output schema, the description is sufficient. Could mention scope of details, but not necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only parameter deal_id has schema coverage 100% with description 'The deal ID'. Description does not add further semantics beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'full details for a specific flight deal', and includes 'routes and airlines', distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or search deals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use when deal_id is known and full details are needed. Context is clear, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_top_deals_fromList Top Deals From AirportARead-onlyInspect
List the cheapest currently active flight deals from a specific Australian airport. Great for answering 'what's cheap from Melbourne right now?'
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (1-20, default 5) | |
| origin | Yes | Australian airport code (e.g. 'MEL', 'SYD', 'BNE', 'PER', 'ADL') |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| deals | No | |
| total | No | Number of deals returned |
| message | No | Optional message about the results |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral details: filters for 'currently active' and 'cheapest' deals, and restricts to Australian airports. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence plus a usage example, no filler. Efficiently communicates purpose and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has complete schema, annotations, and output schema. Description covers core behavior (cheapest active deals, Australian origin). Could mention default limit or maximum, but that is in schema. Sufficient for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described (origin as airport code, limit as result count). Description does not add further semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('cheapest currently active flight deals from a specific Australian airport'), and provides a concrete usage example. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (get_deal, search_deals).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States the tool is for listing cheapest deals from Australian airports and gives a typical query ('what's cheap from Melbourne?'). Does not explicitly mention when to avoid or alternatives, but provides clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_dealsSearch Flight DealsARead-onlyInspect
Search for currently active curated flight deals from Australia. Returns deals matching destination and/or price criteria. Deals are curated exceptional fares, not live inventory search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (1-20, default 5) | |
| max_price | No | Maximum price in AUD | |
| destination | No | Airport code, city name, or country name (e.g. 'DPS', 'Bali', 'Japan') |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| deals | No | |
| total | No | Number of deals returned |
| message | No | Optional message about the results |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying that deals are 'currently active curated flight deals' and 'not live inventory search', which clarifies the data's nature and freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key characteristics. No redundant information. Front-loaded with action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no required parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the curated nature, geographical constraint, and distinction from live inventory, providing sufficient context for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-specific information, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (search), resource (curated flight deals), and scope (from Australia). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'curated exceptional fares, not live inventory search', which sets it apart from get_deal and list_top_deals_from.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (searching for curated deals from Australia) and what it is not (live inventory search). It lacks explicit comparison to siblings but provides enough contextual guidance for appropriate use.
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!