Skip to main content
Glama

AirTreks MCP

by io.github.Airtreks

Submit a Trip Request (Consultant Handoff)

trip_idea_create

Submit the customer's trip to AirTreks — a human travel consultant takes over from there. Automatically runs plan_route to attach the full routing analysis and carrier recommendations to the trip request, so the consultant starts informed, not cold. Use this when the customer is ready to get a real quote. Requires the customer's name, email, at least 2 cities (3-letter IATA codes), a departure date for every leg, and answers to AirTreks' planning questions — call once without questionsAnswers to receive the current questions to ask.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesCustomer full name (required — the consultant contacts them by name)
cabinNoCabin class preference
datesYesDeparture dates, one per leg (ISO format, e.g. '2026-09-15') — a trip with N cities needs N-1 dates, all required. If the customer is unsure, use their best estimates and set flexibleDates.
emailYesCustomer email address (required)
notesNoAdditional notes or special requests from the customer
phoneNoCustomer phone number
budgetNoBudget tier
citiesYesOrdered list of 3-letter IATA city/airport codes (e.g. ['SFO', 'NRT', 'BKK'])
passengersNoNumber of passengers (default 1)
preferencesNoTravel preferences: 'no-lcc', 'lounge-access', 'short-layovers', 'surface-ok'
agentContextNoSummary of what the AI agent learned about this trip (auto-generated routing analysis, customer preferences discussed, etc.)
flexibleDatesNoAre travel dates flexible?
questionsAnswersNoThe customer's answers to AirTreks' planning questions, keyed by question name (e.g. {"guidance": "I want expert guidance from humans"}). A JSON-encoded string of the same object is also accepted. Required, but don't guess the questions: call once without this — the response lists the current questions and their options to ask the customer.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it triggers a human consultant handoff, automatically runs plan_route, and requires the caller to first invoke without questionsAnswers to obtain the questionnaire. This adds meaningful context about side effects and prerequisites on top of readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: it states the core action, the automatic side effect, and the preconditions/usage flow. There is no filler or repetition of schema details; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and notable side effects, the description covers the key invocation requirements, the consultant handoff, and the questionsAnswers prerequisite. A minor gap is that it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., trip ID or next steps), but the provided context is still sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics: it clarifies the need for at least 2 IATA codes, a departure date for every leg, and explains the questionsAnswers flow ('call once without questionsAnswers to receive the current questions to ask'). This goes beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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's function: 'Submit the customer's trip to AirTreks — a human travel consultant takes over from there.' It further distinguishes this from sibling tools by mentioning the automatic plan_route integration and the consultant handoff, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: 'Use this when the customer is ready to get a real quote' and explains the two-step flow of calling once without questionsAnswers to get the current questions. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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