skyaccess

Request a charter booking

request_booking

Submit a charter flight booking request. A SkyAccess specialist will contact the requester within 2 hours to confirm availability and pricing. No payment is required at this stage — this initiates the enquiry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Full name of the requester (required)
`email`	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"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral context: no payment is collected, a SkyAccess specialist will contact the requester within 2 hours, and this only initiates an enquiry. This adds process-level transparency that the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence contributes a distinct fact: the action, the follow-up behavior, and the no-payment condition. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the asynchronous response and the enquiry nature of the tool. It could say a little more about what the caller should expect immediately after submission, but the essential workflow is covered.

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 description is not required to document parameters. It adds a small amount of relevant context by noting that no payment is required, which indirectly explains the absence of a payment parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a clear verb ('Submit') and a specific resource ('charter flight booking request'), and it clarifies this is an enquiry-stage action. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the purpose is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool by stating that no payment is required and that a specialist will confirm availability and pricing. It does not explicitly say when to use booking_handoff or get_charter_estimate instead, leaving that distinction to inference.

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

All skyaccess tools Inspect

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

search_empty_legs, get_flight, and booking_handoff all return booking links, so booking_handoff overlaps somewhat with get_flight's existing link output. However, each tool's focus (multi-result search, single-flight detail, customer handoff link) is generally clear from the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Four tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: search_empty_legs, get_flight, get_charter_estimate, and request_booking. booking_handoff breaks this pattern as a noun-led compound, but the naming remains readable and only mildly inconsistent.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for this private aviation domain: flight search, flight detail, charter pricing, and two distinct booking paths. Each tool serves a meaningful step in the workflow without unnecessary overlap or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core workflows: discovering empty-leg flights, reviewing a specific flight, handing off a booking link, estimating charter prices, and submitting charter requests. Missing status or cancellation endpoints for in-progress requests are minor gaps since specialist follow-up happens outside the server.

Resources

Need Help?