Skip to main content
Glama

AirTreks MCP

by io.github.Airtreks

Validate a Multi-City Routing

route_validate
Read-only

Validate a multi-city flight routing for feasibility. Checks alliance carrier rules, identifies dead legs, warns about poison carriers, and estimates bookability. Use this before building an itinerary to catch routing problems early.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citiesYesOrdered list of IATA city/airport codes (e.g. ['LAX', 'NRT', 'BKK', 'LHR', 'LAX'])
allianceNoPreferred alliance: 'star' or 'oneworld'
carriersNoOptional carrier codes for each leg (e.g. ['NH', 'TG', 'BA', 'BA'])

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns, adding behavioral details like checking dead legs and warning about poison carriers, plus estimating bookability. This enriches context beyond the read-only flag without contradiction.

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 is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and clear with no filler.

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?

For a read-only validation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, when to use it, and the checks performed. It hints at output via 'estimates bookability' but could be slightly more explicit about the result format, though not critical.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage. The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but no more.

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 validates a multi-city flight routing for feasibility, using the specific verb 'validate' and resource. It enumerates specific checks (alliance carrier rules, dead legs, poison carriers, bookability) that distinguish it from sibling routing and planning 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before building an itinerary to catch routing problems early.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient given sibling tools like plan_route and route_suggest.

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