Look up an airport by IATA (3-char) or ICAO (4-char) code. Returns full details including runways.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output behavior ('Returns full details including runways') and the required input format. The verb 'look up' implies a read-only operation, which is sufficient for a lookup tool. It does not mention error cases or permissions, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value: the code formats, the return details, and the runway mention. No filler or redundancy.
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 single-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter format, and return characteristics. Sibling tool differentiation is inferable from the description, and no additional context is needed. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the 'code' parameter: it accepts IATA (3-char) or ICAO (4-char) codes. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type, making the parameter self-explanatory.
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 'Look up an airport by IATA (3-char) or ICAO (4-char) code', specifying the verb (look up), resource (airport), and exact input type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like airports_search and airports_near, which handle name-based or location-based lookups.
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 implies the use case: when you have an IATA or ICAO code, use this tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the code-based scope gives clear context, and the sibling tool names (e.g., airports_search, airports_near) provide additional differentiation in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are namespaced by vendor and resource, so ferry, tour, flight, hotel, and experience searches are broadly distinguishable. However, hotel search exists in both skiplagged and trivago, ferryhopper_search_trips is a deprecated duplicate of search_trips_v2, and several skiplagged calendar/anywhere tools overlap in flight-price discovery, which can cause misselection.
Naming conventions are mixed across the set: plain underscores (airports_search), vendor-prefixed underscores (ferryhopper_get_ports), redundant prefixes (skiplagged_sk_hotels_search, trivago_trivago-accommodation-search), and hyphenated sub-APIs (tourradar_b2b-tour-details, tourradar_vertex-tour-search). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern and at least one version-suffixed deprecated name.
With 56 tools, the server falls into the extreme-mismatch count band. The breadth is partly explained by eight vendor integrations, but many lookups, near-duplicate searches, and deprecated tools could be consolidated or split into focused MCP servers.
The tool surface covers most of the travel-planning lifecycle: airports, airlines, visa rules, FCDO advice, flights, hotels, cars, ferries, experiences, and tours including search, details, and tour booking. The main gaps are that only tours have an actual booking flow and there is no update/cancel or post-booking management.