Search 5,000+ live empty leg flights, get charter estimates and booking links. Free, no API key.
Scored across 6 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_empty_legs, get_flight, list_routes, and get_charter_estimate target different discovery and pricing needs. However, booking_handoff and request_booking both sound booking-related, and get_flight already returns a booking link, creating minor potential overlap with booking_handoff.
The set uses consistent snake_case throughout, and most names follow a verb_noun pattern (get_flight, list_routes, request_booking). booking_handoff is the one deviation, using a noun/noun-style name rather than a clear verb-first convention.
Six tools is well-scoped for a private jet empty leg and charter enquiry server. Each tool covers a meaningful part of the workflow: route discovery, flight search, flight lookup, charter estimate, booking handoff, and charter enquiry.
The surface covers discovery, pricing, enquiry, and external booking handoff for empty legs and private charters. It does not support actual booking, payment, or status checks, but that aligns with the stated read-only/lead-generation model, so the coverage is largely complete.
Return the public SkyAccess listing page link for a specific empty leg flight, where the traveler can review the flight and continue on skyaccess.com. This is read-only: it creates no booking, hold or payment, and it does not modify or cancel anything. It sends no traveler details to SkyAccess and does not ask a specialist to make contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flightId | Yes | The SkyAccess empty leg flight id, as given in the `flightId` field of a flight listing |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the 'creates no booking/hold/payment, modifies or cancels nothing' clauses largely restate structured data. The description does add genuinely new behavior: no traveler details are transmitted to SkyAccess and no specialist is contacted, which annotations cannot express.
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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact list of exclusions. It is appropriately sized, though the no-booking/no-modification clauses partially duplicate the annotation hints and could be trimmed.
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 single-parameter, read-only link retriever with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what the link is, where it leads, and that nothing is mutated or shared. Missing only an explicit note on link validity/expiry, which is minor here.
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 one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents flightId including its origin ('as given in the flightId field of a flight listing'). The description adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the public SkyAccess listing page link for a specific empty leg flight.' It also draws the boundary against 'request_booking' by clarifying no booking/hold/payment is created, though it never names a sibling directly.
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 gives clear context (traveler reviews the flight and continues on skyaccess.com) and negative boundaries (no booking, no hold, no specialist contact), which implicitly routes away from request_booking. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over search_empty_legs or request_booking, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns an indicative price range (min/max USD) for a private charter flight between two locations. Optionally filter by aircraft category and passenger count. When no category is specified, returns estimates for each aircraftCategory value that suits the route and group size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| origin | Yes | Departure city or airport code (required), e.g. "Los Angeles" or "KLAX" | |
| passengers | No | Number of passengers (used to filter suitable aircraft) | |
| destination | Yes | Arrival city or airport code (required), e.g. "New York" or "KJFK" | |
| aircraftCategory | No | Preferred aircraft category. One of: TURBOPROP, LIGHT_JET, MID_SIZE_JET, SUPER_MID_SIZE_JET, HEAVY_JET, ULTRA_LONG_RANGE, VERY_LIGHT_JET. When omitted, estimates for all suitable categories are returned. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the default branch behavior (all suitable categories returned when category is omitted) and the nature of the output (indicative min/max USD, not a firm quote).
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output format. The final sentence duplicates the aircraftCategory schema description ('When omitted, estimates for all suitable categories are returned'), which is the only wasted clause.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the min/max USD range. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotation safety hints, an agent has what it needs; only the sibling-routing question remains unaddressed.
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 all four parameters are already documented, including the enum values and the 'used to filter suitable aircraft' note on passengers. The description only echoes the aircraftCategory omission behavior already stated in the schema, adding no new syntax or format guidance.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (returns a price estimate for a private charter flight) plus the exact return shape (min/max USD range between two locations). The purpose is unmistakable, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_flight or search_empty_legs.
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?
It explains the optional aircraftCategory filter and what happens when it is omitted, which is useful context for calling it. However, it never says when to reach for this tool instead of get_flight, request_booking, or search_empty_legs, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Look up one empty leg flight by its id and return its route, departure time, whole-aircraft price (taxes and fees shown at checkout), aircraft type, available seats, amenities and a booking link, as currently published. Returns a not-available message if the flight is no longer published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flightId | Yes | The SkyAccess empty leg flight id, as given in the `flightId` field of a flight listing |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it declares that results reflect data 'as currently published', that an unpublished flight yields a not-available message rather than an error, and that price is whole-aircraft with taxes/fees deferred to checkout. Auth and rate-limit behavior remain unstated, keeping it out of the top band.
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, no filler. The action and scope lead, and the fallback behavior follows. Every clause carries information the agent needs.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating route, departure time, price, aircraft type, seats, amenities, and booking link, plus the negative case. It is nearly complete; the only minor gap is that it doesn't distinguish a not-found id from an unpublished flight.
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 one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines flightId and its provenance. The description's 'by its id' adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('one empty leg flight by its id'), and the singular-by-id scope cleanly separates it from the sibling search_empty_legs, which returns listings. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent is expected to have a flightId already, which is hinted at by the schema ('as given in the flightId field of a flight listing') but never stated in the description. No alternatives (search_empty_legs, request_booking) or when-not conditions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List popular SkyAccess private jet routes, each with its origin, destination and minPrice: the lowest whole-aircraft empty leg price currently listed on the route, in USD (taxes and fees shown at checkout), or null when no flight on the route currently has a listed price. Results are stable, not a live ranking: the list is a curated catalogue, six featured routes first and then the routes travelers searched most over the last 30 days, served from a cache refreshed about every 30 minutes, so repeated calls return the same routes. Pass a route to search_empty_legs to see its flights.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent profile, and the description adds substantial context on top: the list is a curated catalogue (six featured routes, then top searches over 30 days), served from a cache refreshed roughly every 30 minutes, so results are stable rather than a live ranking. It also defines the minPrice field's exact scope and its null semantics, which the annotations cannot convey.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information: field definition, stability guarantee, cache behavior, and the handoff. It is a dense single paragraph with one long embedded clause, but nothing is padding.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so fully, including units (USD), tax handling (shown at checkout), and the null case for missing prices. An agent can call this and interpret the result without further information.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description describes the response fields (origin, destination, minPrice in USD, null when unlisted), but there is no input to characterize further.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List popular SkyAccess private jet routes') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (origin, destination, minPrice). It is clearly separable from search_empty_legs, whose role is explicitly handed off at the end.
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 closing sentence 'Pass a route to search_empty_legs to see its flights' tells the agent precisely what to do next once it has a route, which is genuine routing guidance. It lacks an explicit when-not statement (e.g. when to skip straight to search_empty_legs if a route is already known), so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submit a charter flight booking request to SkyAccess. This sends the traveler's name, email and trip details (route, date, passengers and any notes) to SkyAccess so a specialist can follow up. A SkyAccess specialist will follow up with the requester by email shortly to confirm availability and pricing. No payment is taken and no booking is created: this only starts the enquiry. Privacy policy: https://skyaccess.com/privacy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name of the requester (required) | |
| Yes | Email address of the requester (required). A specialist will reply here. | ||
| notes | No | Optional notes or special requests (e.g. catering, pet, preferred aircraft) | |
| origin | Yes | Departure city or airport (required), e.g. "Los Angeles" or "LAX" | |
| passengers | Yes | Number of passengers (required) | |
| destination | Yes | Arrival city or airport (required), e.g. "Miami" or "KMIA" | |
| departureDate | Yes | Departure date in ISO format (required), e.g. "2026-08-15" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: exactly what data is transmitted to a third party, that a specialist replies by email, that no payment is taken and no booking is created, plus a privacy link. It does not clarify what happens on duplicate submissions or idempotency, which the non-idempotent annotation leaves ambiguous.
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?
Front-loads the action, then elaborates on follow-up and the no-payment guarantee, ending with the privacy link. Slight redundancy between the follow-up sentence and the email parameter description, but no wasted fat.
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?
With no output schema and seven parameters, the description covers the essentials: intent, data sent, expected follow-up, and the no-payment/no-booking caveat. Missing only edge-case behavior such as duplicate submissions or validation failures.
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 baseline is 3. The prose enumerates the fields sent (route, date, passengers, notes), but adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema already documents.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a charter flight booking request to SkyAccess.' It clarifies the nature of the operation (an enquiry, not a confirmed booking), which distinguishes it from get_charter_estimate and search_empty_legs at a glance.
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?
Explains the context clearly: use this to start an enquiry so a specialist can follow up on availability and pricing, with no payment involved. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (e.g. get_charter_estimate, booking_handoff) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search available empty leg flights by origin, destination, date range, passenger count, and an optional max_price ceiling. Returns up to 5 matching flights with route, departure time, whole-aircraft price (taxes and fees shown at checkout), aircraft type, available seats, and a booking link. Empty legs are discounted private jet availability on specific routes. A flight with price: null has no published price (shown on SkyAccess as "Contact for price"). Such flights are included even when max_price is set, because their price is unknown; they are not confirmed to be within the cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| origin | No | Departure city or airport code (e.g. "Los Angeles" or "LAX") | |
| max_price | No | Optional price ceiling in USD (whole-aircraft price; taxes and fees shown at checkout). Legs priced above this figure are excluded. Legs with no published price (price: null, shown as "Contact for price") are still included because their price is unknown; they are not confirmed to be within the cap. | |
| passengers | No | Number of passengers | |
| destination | No | Arrival city or airport code (e.g. "Las Vegas" or "KLAS") | |
| departureDateTo | No | Latest departure date in ISO format | |
| departureDateFrom | No | Earliest departure date in ISO format (e.g. "2026-07-10") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly focuses on what the annotations cannot convey: the 5-result cap, the returned fields, and the important edge case that price:null legs are included even when max_price is set and are not confirmed within the cap. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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?
Front-loads the search dimensions, then the return shape, then the domain and edge-case explanation. Every sentence carries information, though the null-price caveat appears twice (description and schema) and could be tightened.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values (route, departure time, price, aircraft type, seats, booking link) and the semantics of empty legs and null prices. An agent has what it needs to search and interpret results, though it does not clarify whether all parameters are optional or how the empty result set is surfaced.
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%, so each parameter is already documented with format examples and the max_price null-price nuance. The description largely restates the schema's own parameter notes (origin, destination, dates, passengers, max_price), so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.
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?
States a specific verb (Search) plus resource (empty leg flights) and enumerates the search dimensions. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like get_flight and request_booking, which are lookup and mutation tools respectively.
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?
Usage is implied: this is the tool to search discounted private jet availability on specific routes. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings such as get_flight or get_charter_estimate, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
list_routeslist_routeslist_routesbooking_handoff1 field changedInput schema / properties / flightId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The flight id returned in the `flightId` field of a search_empty_legs result"New value: +"The SkyAccess empty leg flight id, as given in the `flightId` field of a flight listing"get_flight1 field changedInput schema / properties / flightId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The flight id returned in the `flightId` field of a search_empty_legs result"New value: +"The SkyAccess empty leg flight id, as given in the `flightId` field of a flight listing"search_empty_legs1 field changedInput schema / properties / max_price / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional price ceiling in USD (all-in customer price). Legs priced above this figure are excluded. Legs with no published price (price: null, shown as \"Contact for price\") are still included because their price is unknown; they are not confirmed to be within the cap."New value: +"Optional price ceiling in USD (whole-aircraft price; taxes and fees shown at checkout). Legs priced above this figure are excluded. Legs with no published price (price: null, shown as \"Contact for price\") are still included because their price is unknown; they are not confirmed to be within the cap."get_charter_estimate2 fields changedInput schema / properties / destination / descriptionPrevious value: -"Arrival city or airport code (required) — e.g. \"New York\" or \"KJFK\""New value: +"Arrival city or airport code (required), e.g. \"New York\" or \"KJFK\""Input schema / properties / origin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Departure city or airport code (required) — e.g. \"Los Angeles\" or \"KLAX\""New value: +"Departure city or airport code (required), e.g. \"Los Angeles\" or \"KLAX\""request_booking4 fields changedInput schema / properties / departureDate / descriptionPrevious value: -"Departure date in ISO format (required) — e.g. \"2026-08-15\""New value: +"Departure date in ISO format (required), e.g. \"2026-08-15\""Input schema / properties / destination / descriptionPrevious value: -"Arrival city or airport (required) — e.g. \"Miami\" or \"KMIA\""New value: +"Arrival city or airport (required), e.g. \"Miami\" or \"KMIA\""Input schema / properties / email / descriptionPrevious value: -"Email address of the requester (required) — a specialist will reply here"New value: +"Email address of the requester (required). A specialist will reply here."Input schema / properties / origin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Departure city or airport (required) — e.g. \"Los Angeles\" or \"LAX\""New value: +"Departure city or airport (required), e.g. \"Los Angeles\" or \"LAX\""search_empty_legs1 field changedInput schema / properties / max_price / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional price ceiling in USD (all-in customer price). Only legs at or below this figure are returned. One exception, by design: legs whose operator has not confirmed they will honour a published price are still returned regardless of the cap, with `price: null` — describe those as \"Contact for price\" and do NOT tell the customer they fall within the cap, because their price is unknown, not low."New value: +"Optional price ceiling in USD (all-in customer price). Legs priced above this figure are excluded. Legs with no published price (price: null, shown as \"Contact for price\") are still included because their price is unknown; they are not confirmed to be within the cap."booking_handoffget_charter_estimateget_flightrequest_bookingsearch_empty_legsLive private jet empty legs, charter estimates in 12 countries and quote requests.
Search empty-leg private jet offers; prepare inquiries and alerts the user confirms by email.
Instant private jet charter price estimates and confirmed live quotes, worldwide.
Ferry-flight price estimates + aircraft, airport, FAA-registry, route & live-flight data.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
