Skip to main content
Glama

Abstraxn

by com.abstraxn.mcp

Flight / hotel search (pay-per-call)

travel.search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Flight and hotel search, paid per call in USDC/USDm directly from the caller's own wallet via the x402 protocol — no Abstraxn account needed. Pick one action:

  • flight_search ($0.02): live flight fares via Google Flights. Requires origin, destination, departureDate. Optional returnDate, adults, children, travelClass, stops, maxPrice, currency.

  • hotel_search ($0.02): live hotel prices/ratings via Google Hotels. Requires q (city or hotel name), checkInDate, checkOutDate. Optional adults, children, sortBy, minPrice, maxPrice, hotelClass, currency.

Prices above are indicative — the exact charge for a given call is always whatever the live payment challenge specifies for that request. The first call (no paymentPayload) returns paymentRequired; retry with the same arguments plus paymentPayload to complete payment and get the real result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNohotel_search: city or hotel name to search for, e.g. "hotels in Paris".
stopsNoflight_search: stop preference — 0=nonstop only, 1=up to 1 stop, 2=up to 2 stops. Optional.
actionYesWhich travel operation to perform.
adultsNoflight_search / hotel_search: number of adult passengers/guests. Optional.
originNoflight_search: departure airport IATA code, e.g. "JFK".
sortByNohotel_search: sort order — 3=lowest price, 8=highest rating, 13=most reviewed. Optional.
childrenNoflight_search / hotel_search: number of children. Optional.
currencyNoflight_search / hotel_search: currency code, default "USD".
maxPriceNoflight_search / hotel_search: maximum price filter. Optional.
minPriceNohotel_search: minimum price per night filter. Optional.
hotelClassNohotel_search: star rating filter, 2-5. Optional.
returnDateNoflight_search: return date for round trips, YYYY-MM-DD. Optional.
checkInDateNohotel_search: check-in date, YYYY-MM-DD.
destinationNoflight_search: arrival airport IATA code, e.g. "LAX".
travelClassNoflight_search: cabin class — 1=Economy, 2=Premium Economy, 3=Business, 4=First. Optional.
checkOutDateNohotel_search: check-out date, YYYY-MM-DD.
departureDateNoflight_search: departure date, YYYY-MM-DD.
paymentPayloadNox402 payment payload from a previous `paymentRequired` challenge. Omit on the first call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
paymentRequiredNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

It discloses the two-step payment flow (paymentRequired then paymentPayload), pricing, and that the exact charge comes from the live challenge. This goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, providing crucial behavioral context for the agent.

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?

The description is well-structured with bullet-point action breakdowns and front-loads the most important info (paid, x402, no account). Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description fully covers action selection, required params, pricing, and the payment retry handshake. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters by action and marking which are required vs optional (e.g., 'Requires origin, destination, departureDate'), which the schema alone doesn't explicitly convey. Enum meanings are already in the schema, so no extra credit there.

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 the tool performs flight and hotel search via Google Flights and Google Hotels, using specific action subtypes. It distinguishes from sibling tools (all crypto/network unrelated) and provides a specific verb and resource.

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 clear context: pay-per-call, x402 protocol, no account needed, and explicit required vs optional parameters for each action. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but no comparable siblings exist.

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

All Abstraxn toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain (market, network, places, social, travel, web3) and each has a distinct purpose. However, within the 'network' group, tools like token_price, token_info, and market.crypto/price_feed could be confused for similar price lookups, but descriptions clarify their differences (free vs paid, DEX vs CoinGecko).

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming uses a dot-separated domain prefix (e.g., market.crypto, network.blocknumber, places.lookup) which is consistent in structure, but the action selection within each tool (e.g., search vs price_feed) is not reflected in the tool name itself. This hybrid approach is clear but not strictly uniform.

Tool Count4/5

With 11 tools covering a wide range of domains (crypto, network, places, social, travel, web3), the count is appropriate for a multi-purpose server. Each domain has a focused set of actions, so the tool count feels well-scoped without being excessive.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a broad but shallow surface across multiple domains. For example, crypto market data is well-covered, but places lacks a reverse geocode or photo tool. Travel has only flight and hotel search, missing car rentals or activities. The network domain is relatively complete for read operations, but lacks write support beyond prepare_transfer.

Resources