Skip to main content
Glama

AirTreks MCP

by io.github.Airtreks

Estimate the Price of a Multi-City Route

route_estimate
Read-only

Get a price range for a multi-city or round-the-world trip, drawn from what AirTreks customers have actually paid on those routes. Give it the cities and it returns a per-person range in USD with how much history sits behind it. Use it when someone asks what a trip will cost and you don't have exact dates yet — it needs no dates and no passenger details. It is a range from past bookings, not a live quote, so it will not reflect today's availability or seasonality; it tells you the right ballpark before anyone commits to dates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cabinNoCabin to price. Defaults to economy. 'premium' means premium economy.
citiesYesOrdered list of IATA city/airport codes for the whole trip, e.g. ['LAX','NRT','BKK','LHR','LAX']. Put '000' between two codes to mark that leg as travelled overland rather than flown, e.g. ['HAN','000','SGN','SYD'].

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds valuable behavioral context: it surfaces historical data, per-person USD ranges, confidence via history, and limitations around availability and seasonality. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description uses four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and data source, output format, when to use it, and a key limitation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value as a per-person USD range with historical backing. It also covers the main selection context and limitations. It could be slightly stronger by naming alternative live-quote tools, but it is sufficient for a two-parameter tool.

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%, with both cities and cabin documented in detail including IATA code syntax and the '000' overland marker. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool gets a price range for multi-city or round-the-world trips from historical AirTreks customer bookings. It specifies the resource, data source, and key scope, and distinguishes itself from a live quote even without naming sibling tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when someone asks trip cost without exact dates and notes it needs no dates or passenger details. It also clarifies it is not a live quote, implying the alternative for live quotes, though it does not name a specific sibling tool.

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

All AirTreks MCP 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in the routing/planning space—plan_route, custom_route_build, route_validate, route_suggest, and hub_check all touch alliance feasibility, dead legs, and carrier selection. The descriptions do provide usage cues, but an agent could still struggle to pick the right one for a given step.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear object-plus-action pattern like route_estimate, route_suggest, fare_product_match, and custom_route_build. plan_route inverts the pattern and itinerary_quote_status is a noun phrase rather than an action, but the overall style is mostly consistent and readable.

Tool Count4/5

Eleven tools is a reasonable scope for a multi-city flight planning domain that spans routing, validation, estimates, quotes, and consultant handoff. The count is not excessive, though some consolidation among the overlapping planning tools would tighten the set.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the main journey from trip idea and routing suggestion through validation, fare product matching, live quoting, quote status polling, and human consultant submission. Minor gaps exist—such as no explicit fare rule detail retrieval or date-flexible search—but the core workflow is coherent and has no dead ends.

Resources