Skip to main content
Glama

Tripuck

by com.tripuck.mcp

Tripuck Flight Details

flight_details
Read-onlyIdempotent

Detailed information for a specific Tripuck flight ID: segments, layovers, baggage allowance, fare rules, refund/change conditions, operating carrier. Use for follow-up questions after search_flights: "what is the baggage allowance on this flight?", "bu uçuşta aktarma süresi nedir?", "كم الأمتعة المسموحة؟". The LLM MUST infer the user language from the conversation and pass it via the locale parameter ("tr" Turkish, "en" English, "ar" Arabic, "az" Azerbaijani, "de" German, "ka" Georgian, "uz" Uzbek). All widget UI text and the text response are then returned in that language. If currency is not specified, a sensible default is picked from the locale (tr→TRY, en→USD, de→EUR, ar→USD, az→AZN, ka→GEL, uz→UZS).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adultsNoAdult passengers.
localeNoUser language as BCP-47 or 2-letter code. Supported: "tr" Turkish, "en" English, "ar" Arabic, "az" Azerbaijani, "de" German, "ka" Georgian, "uz" Uzbek. The LLM MUST infer this from the conversation and pass it explicitly; widget UI and response text will be rendered in this language.
originNoDeparture IATA code of this flight (same as the prior `search_flights` `origin`). Pass it so the "open on Tripuck" link works.
infantsNoInfant passengers.
childrenNoChild passengers.
currencyNoISO 4217 currency code. Examples: TRY, USD, EUR, AZN, GEL, UZS. If omitted, a sensible default is picked from the locale (tr→TRY, en→USD, de→EUR, ar→USD, az→AZN, ka→GEL, uz→UZS).
flightIdYesTripuck flight ID — from `flight.id` in a prior `search_flights` response.
searchKeyNo`searchKey` from a prior `search_flights` response (required to retrieve async search state).
cabinClassNoCabin class.
returnDateNoReturn date YYYY-MM-DD if the prior search was round-trip.
destinationNoArrival IATA code of this flight (same as the prior `search_flights` `destination`).
departureDateNoDeparture date YYYY-MM-DD of this flight (same as the prior `search_flights` `departureDate`).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the returned sections, localized UI/response text, currency fallback defaults, the requirement to pass searchKey for async search state, and the purpose of origin/destination for the Tripuck link. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense paragraph and is front-loaded with purpose, but it is somewhat long due to multilingual examples and repeated UI/text localization statements. The length is justified by the 12-parameter complexity and important localization rules, though a little trimming could improve conciseness.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: it explains prerequisites (prior search_flights), the return payload contents, localization behavior, currency defaults, and searchKey requirements. Together with 100% schema coverage, the agent has sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description goes far beyond schema descriptions by explaining how to obtain flightId and searchKey from a prior search, mandating that the LLM infer locale, defining currency defaults per locale, and clarifying the role of origin/destination. This is significant added meaning.

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 clearly states that the tool provides detailed information for a specific Tripuck flight ID and enumerates the exact content (segments, layovers, baggage, fare rules, refund/change, operating carrier). It also distinguishes itself from sibling search_flights by explicitly framing it as a follow-up tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use for follow-up questions after search_flights') with concrete example questions, and explains locale/currency requirements. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the follow-up context is clear.

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

All Tripuck 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct travel need: flight search, hotel search, eSIM search, price calendar, popular routes, meeting point coordination, and flight details. No two tools overlap in their core function; even cheapest_dates vs search_flights are clearly separated by use case (flexible date overview vs specific trip search).

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and are reasonably descriptive. There is a mix of verb-first (search_flights, search_hotels, search_esim, find_meeting_point) and noun/adjective-first (cheapest_dates, popular_routes, flight_details), but the pattern is consistent enough that an agent can predict naming conventions.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a travel search server. Each tool serves a distinct and valuable purpose, covering flights, hotels, eSIM, inspiration, and group coordination without bloat or redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core travel search lifecycle: search flights, search hotels, search eSIM, plus helpful extras like cheapest dates and popular routes. Minor gaps exist—for example, no hotel details tool or car rental search—but these are not fatal for the server's primary search-driven purpose.

Resources