Skip to main content
Glama

Award Travel Finder

by com.awardtravelfinder

wikipedia_airports

Read-onlyDestructive

Look up airline service from a Wikipedia airport page. Use when fare/award tools say a route doesn't exist (false negative on small markets) or when you need the full destination list for an airport. Free, no auth.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
airlineNoOptional — filter the result to this airline name (substring match)
destinationNoOptional — filter to flights serving this destination IATA or city
airport_codeYesIATA (3-letter) or ICAO (4-letter) airport code

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description presents a read-only lookup operation, but the annotations include destructiveHint: true, which conflicts with the described behavior and with readOnlyHint: true. The description does not disclose any destructive side effect, rate limits, or data staleness concerns, so the conflicting annotation is not resolved.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core action and source, then gives two concrete use cases, and ends with practical access notes. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the low parameter count and clear schema, the description covers most of what an agent needs to decide when to call the tool. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not specify the exact return format beyond 'full destination list', leaving some uncertainty about the expected response shape.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds general context about destination lists and route verification but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Look up airline service from a Wikipedia airport page') and clearly distinguishes the tool from fare/award route tools by calling out its role as a fallback for false negatives and destination list lookup. This is immediately understandable and differentiated from the many sibling search tools.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: when fare/award tools incorrectly say a route doesn't exist, or when the full destination list is needed. It also provides a practical precondition ('Free, no auth'), giving the agent clear routing context without ambiguity.

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

All Award Travel Finder 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

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates (log_lounge_visit vs lounge_mark_lounge_visited, delete_lounge_visit vs lounge_delete_visit, audit_hotel_folio vs audit_marriott_folio) and the award-chart tools (get_pricing, get_program_rates, get_partner_award_options, get_program_partner_chart) have unclear boundaries. The three discover_more_flight_tools variants and overlapping lounge/portfolio listers compound the ambiguity, so an agent can easily pick the wrong one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case verb_noun names and many have consistent prefixes (cards_, lounge_, fs_, sw_), but prefixes are applied inconsistently: log_lounge_visit/delete_lounge_visit sit outside the lounge_ prefix while equivalent lounge_* tools exist, and fs_search_flight references a non-existent search_flight. The broad get_/list_/search_ verbs are predictable, but the mixed domain-prefix style and duplicate concepts hurt coherence.

Tool Count1/5

136 tools is far beyond a well-scoped server and bundles at least eight distinct domains (award search, cards, hotels, lounges, seatmaps, wifi, Viator, feedback). Many tools could be split into separate MCPs without loss of coherence, and the sheer count makes selection and prompt overhead prohibitive.

Completeness4/5

The core award-travel domain is well covered: bookings, hotels, points balances, statuses, vouchers, monitors, trips, and cards all have lifecycle CRUD, plus search and reference tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g. no true delete for standing orders, no single get for route monitors, and the Viator pair is an isolated mini-domain), but agents can generally complete workflows without dead ends.

Resources