Alice Flights
Server Details
Search flights by route, dates, passengers, and cabin class. By Alice, Israel's travel app.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no risk of confusing it with others. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as flight search between two cities, leaving no ambiguity.
The single tool 'search_flights' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. Since it's the only tool, consistency is inherent.
A single tool for a flights server is minimal. While it covers the core search functionality, typical flight services include more operations, making this count borderline thin (fit for search-only domain, but overall narrow scope).
The tool provides comprehensive flight search with categories (best, cheapest, fastest) and direct booking links. For a search-only service, it is complete, covering all necessary information for an agent to proceed.
Available Tools
1 toolsearch_flightsSearch FlightsARead-onlyInspect
Search for available flights between two cities. Returns a curated set of options, each tagged with one or more categories:
best: the engine's recommended balance of price, total duration, and stops.
cheapest: lowest total price.
fastest: shortest total travel time. The categories overlap — a single flight can be both best and cheapest. Each option includes price, total durations, layovers, its
categories, and a direct booking link. Options may includeseats_remaining— the number of seats left in this booking class at this price; values of 4 or fewer indicate limited availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adults | No | Number of adult passengers (0–9) | |
| origin | Yes | 3-letter IATA city or airport code (e.g. 'TLV', 'LON', 'MAD') | |
| infants | No | Number of infant passengers (0–9) | |
| seniors | No | Number of senior passengers (0–9) | |
| children | No | Number of child passengers (0–9) | |
| language | No | Language for the interactive results widget. Set 'he' when the conversation is in Hebrew; defaults to English. | en |
| destination | Yes | 3-letter IATA city or airport code (e.g. 'TLV', 'LON', 'MAD') | |
| return_date | No | Return date for round trips (YYYY-MM-DD). Omit for one-way. | |
| flight_class | No | Cabin class: tour (economy), tourPlus (premium economy), business, or first | tour |
| departure_date | Yes | Departure date in YYYY-MM-DD format |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations, such as the categories (best, cheapest, fastest), overlapping nature, inclusion of seats_remaining with availability warning, and return fields. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are consistent and the description enriches them.
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 concise and well-structured, using bullet points for categories. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential details without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values: price, total durations, layovers, categories, booking link, and seats_remaining. All parameters are covered by schema descriptions, making the overall definition 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 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description does not add new parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema, hence a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool searches for available flights between two cities and returns a curated set of options with categories, price, durations, etc. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from potential siblings (none listed).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for flight searching but lacks comparisons to alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable but still leaves room for improvement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!