Skip to main content
Glama

Google Flights Search (Real-Time Fares)

Search one-way flights

search_oneway_flights
Read-only

Search real-time one-way flights on Google Flights. Input: origin and destination IATA codes (destination may be a list) plus either one departure date or a date range. Returns each flight's price, airline, duration, stops, a bookable buy_link, and Google's historical price range (price_insights_low / price_insights_high) so you can say whether a fare is actually a good deal.

Use it for any one-way fare question, including open-ended ones. For a flexible search make ONE call with a date range and/or several destinations -- do NOT call it once per date. 'Cheapest flight to Sri Lanka anywhere in October' is one call, not thirty.

Requires the caller's own RapidAPI key. Each date/destination combination is one billed request; the count and the plan's remaining quota come back in api_usage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum flights to return, after merging and sorting.
sort_byNo"best", "price", or "duration". Applied across all results.best
currencyNoISO currency code, default "usd".usd
max_priceNoOnly return flights at or below this price.
max_stopsNoMaximum stops per flight. 0 means non-stop only.
seat_typeNo1 economy, 2 premium economy, 3 business, 4 first.
passengersNoPassenger counts as [adults, children, infants].
to_airportYesDestination IATA code, or a list of them to compare.
from_airportYesOrigin IATA code, e.g. "TLV".
max_searchesNoCap the billed requests this call may make. Lower it to spend less of the plan's quota on a wide search; the range is then sampled evenly rather than cut short.
use_fallbackNoLeave unset. Switches the search to a second, independent flight data source instead of the usual Google Flights page read. Unset already escalates to that source once, automatically, after a search's retries have failed. true forces it inline on every attempt -- much slower, and it can time out. false disables it entirely, that automatic retry included.
airline_codesNoRestrict to these airline codes, e.g. ["LY"].
departure_dateNoSingle departure date, "YYYY-MM-DD".
arrival_time_maxNoLatest arrival hour, 0-23.
arrival_time_minNoEarliest arrival hour, 0-23.
departure_date_toNoLast date of a departure range.
departure_time_maxNoLatest departure hour, 0-23.
departure_time_minNoEarliest departure hour, 0-23.
departure_date_fromNoFirst date of a departure range.
exclude_airline_codesNoExclude these airline codes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoPresent when there is something the model must relay to the user rather than silently absorb -- no results, a degraded search, a missing key or a spent quota.
partialNoPresent when some searches failed but others succeeded. Plain text saying how much of the request the results cover.
resultsYesThe itineraries or properties found, already sorted and deduplicated. An empty array is only meaningful when search_status is 'empty'.
api_usageNoWhat this call cost the caller's own RapidAPI plan, and what remains on it. Present on every response that reached the upstream, including a degraded one -- a search that failed was still billed.
signup_urlNoWhere the caller subscribes or changes plan.
result_countNo
needs_api_keyNoTrue when no usable RapidAPI key arrived with the call, or the upstream rejected the one that did. No search was run and nothing was billed; signup_url and message say how to fix it.
search_statusNoWhether the underlying search actually completed, read from the backend's X-Search-Status header. 'ok': every combination searched returned results. 'empty': the search completed and Google genuinely has no itineraries for it -- a real answer, not a failure. 'partial': some combinations returned results and some failed, so the list is incomplete. 'degraded': every combination failed, so the search did not happen and an empty list means nothing; this case is also flagged with isError: true and is safe to retry.
quota_exhaustedNoTrue when the caller's RapidAPI plan has no requests left for the current period.
search_coverageNoWhat was actually searched. Present whether or not the request was truncated, so a model can state honestly what its answer rests on.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses real-time behavior, the need for a caller-provided RapidAPI key, per-combination billing, quota reporting via api_usage, and the inclusion of historical price insights. These are non-obvious behavioral details that materially affect how an agent should invoke and interpret results.

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 appropriately sized for a complex tool with 20 parameters. It front-loads the primary purpose and return value, then gives usage guidance, then practical billing/API details. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples clarify without bloating.

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 high schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and the tool's complexity, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to batch searches, when to use it, authentication requirements, and billing semantics. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: origin/destination must be IATA codes, destination may be a list, and the date may be a single date or range. It also explains how to batch flexible searches, which is critical for using parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search real-time one-way flights on Google Flights') and clearly distinguishes this from the sibling roundtrip tool by emphasizing 'one-way'. It also lists the key output fields that tell the agent what the tool produces, so there is no ambiguity about its purpose.

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?

It explicitly says to use this for 'any one-way fare question, including open-ended ones' and gives concrete instruction: make ONE call with a date range and/or multiple destinations instead of calling once per date. It even includes a clarifying example ('Cheapest flight to Sri Lanka anywhere in October' is one call, not thirty). This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools are cleanly separated by trip type: one-way versus round-trip. Each has distinct input requirements and returns different pricing semantics, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to use for a given query.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow the exact same verb_noun pattern: search_<trip_type>_flights. The naming is predictable, symmetrical, and easy for an agent to reason about.

Tool Count4/5

Only two tools exist, which is slightly lean, but each one earns its place by covering a fundamental flight-search mode. The server is narrowly scoped to Google Flights fare searches, so the small count does not feel wasteful or cluttered.

Completeness4/5

One-way and round-trip searches cover the core fare-search lifecycle, and flexible date/destination inputs add substantial depth. The main gap is the lack of multi-city or more advanced trip-search modes, but that is a reasonable omission for the stated purpose.