Skip to main content
Glama

FlightFix

by io.github.everyai-com
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Claim timeline

claim_timeline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Give claim-deadline guidance for a flight under EU261 or UK261: a recommended act-by date (flight date + 12 months), the legal time-limit guidance, and an evidence checklist. Use for 'how long do I have to claim?'. Do NOT use to check eligibility; use check_compensation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemeYesEU261 (EU/EEA departure or EU carrier) or UK261 (UK departure or UK carrier); check_compensation tells you which.
flight_dateYesDate of the disrupted flight, YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. 2026-09-01

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schemeYesScheme the guidance is for.
disclaimerYesNot-legal-advice disclaimer to show the user.
flight_dateYesFlight date as given, YYYY-MM-DD.
window_guidanceYesLegal time-limit guidance for the scheme.
evidence_checklistYesEvidence to gather, one per entry.
recommended_action_byYesSuggested claim-by date (flight + 12 months), YYYY-MM-DD.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / flight_date / description
      Previous value: -"Flight date YYYY-MM-DD"New value: +"Date of the disrupted flight, YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. 2026-09-01"
    • addedInput schema / properties / flight_date / pattern
      Added value: +"^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / scheme / description
      Previous value: -"EU261 or UK261, case-sensitive"New value: +"EU261 (EU/EEA departure or EU carrier) or UK261 (UK departure or UK carrier); check_compensation tells you which."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "description": "Not-legal-advice disclaimer to show the user.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "evidence_checklist": {
+      "description": "Evidence to gather, one per entry.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "flight_date": {
+      "description": "Flight date as given, YYYY-MM-DD.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "recommended_action_by": {
+      "description": "Suggested claim-by date (flight + 12 months), YYYY-MM-DD.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scheme": {
+      "description": "Scheme the guidance is for.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "window_guidance": {
+      "description": "Legal time-limit guidance for the scheme.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "flight_date",
+    "scheme",
+    "recommended_action_by",
+    "window_guidance",
+    "evidence_checklist",
+    "disclaimer"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "claim_deadline": {
-      "description": "The deadline by which the claim must be submitted, in YYYY-MM-DD format.",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "evidence_checklist": {
-      "description": "A list of required evidence for the claim.",
-      "items": {
-        "description": "A specific piece of evidence required for the claim.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "type": "array"
-    },
-    "flight_date": {
-      "description": "The date of the flight in YYYY-MM-DD format.",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "scheme": {
-      "description": "The scheme under which the claim is being made, either EU261 or UK261.",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "scheme",
-    "flight_date",
-    "claim_deadline",
-    "evidence_checklist"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / scheme / description
      Added value: +"EU261 or UK261, case-sensitive"
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "claim_deadline": {
+      "description": "The deadline by which the claim must be submitted, in YYYY-MM-DD format.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "evidence_checklist": {
+      "description": "A list of required evidence for the claim.",
+      "items": {
+        "description": "A specific piece of evidence required for the claim.",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "flight_date": {
+      "description": "The date of the flight in YYYY-MM-DD format.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scheme": {
+      "description": "The scheme under which the claim is being made, either EU261 or UK261.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "scheme",
+    "flight_date",
+    "claim_deadline",
+    "evidence_checklist"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the act-by date is derived as flight date + 12 months and the response includes a legal time-limit explanation and evidence checklist. It does not mention jurisdiction caveats or rate limits, but for a pure computation tool the remaining burden is light.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the purpose and outputs before the routing constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still previews the three deliverables an agent should expect. Combined with the explicit sibling routing rule and full schema coverage, nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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% and both required parameters are richly documented (scheme enum with EU/EEA vs UK departure logic, flight_date with pattern and example). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair (give claim-deadline guidance) and enumerates the concrete outputs: a recommended act-by date, legal time-limit guidance, and an evidence checklist. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_compensation, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the triggering user intent verbatim ('how long do I have to claim?') and gives an explicit exclusion plus the alternative to use instead ('Do NOT use to check eligibility; use check_compensation'). This is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the named alternative all in one line.

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

All FlightFix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources