Ignav Flights
Server Details
Live flight prices and working booking links for AI agents and travel apps.
- 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 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Both tools have distinct purposes: one for finding airport codes and another for searching flights. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent 'search_' prefix with noun, forming a clear verb_noun pattern.
2 tools is on the low end for a flight search server, but it may be sufficient if the scope is limited to search only. However, users might expect additional functionalities like booking or itinerary management.
The server covers the basic search workflow (airport lookup and flight search), but lacks tools for booking, managing preferences, or filtering results, leaving notable gaps for a full travel workflow.
Available Tools
2 toolssearch_airportsARead-onlyInspect
Find airport IATA codes by city, airport name, metro area, or code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of airport results to return. | |
| query | Yes | Search query for airport names, city names, or airport codes. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | List of airports matching the query. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that it finds IATA codes, but no extra behavioral traits (e.g., result ordering, rate limits) beyond the annotations are disclosed.
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 one sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the action verb. Every word serves a purpose; no fluff or tautology. It is optimally concise.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It states the tool's purpose, searchable fields, and return type (IATA codes). No gaps for the agent to guess.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the query parameter can be a city, airport name, metro area, or code, going beyond the schema's generic description. It does not add syntax details but provides helpful context.
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 finds airport IATA codes using a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'airport IATA codes'. It lists searchable fields (city, name, metro area, code) and distinguishes from sibling tool search_flights, which is about flights, not codes.
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?
The description implies usage for looking up airport codes but does not explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling tool search_flights. No exclusions or when-not conditions are given; guidance is purely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_flightsARead-onlyInspect
Search one-way or round-trip flight prices between two IATA airport codes. Returns only itineraries with a preferred booking link and includes a top-level booking_url for each itinerary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adults | No | Number of adult passengers traveling. | |
| market | No | 2-letter market or country code affecting pricing and results. | US |
| origin | Yes | Origin airport code for flight search. | |
| children | No | Number of child passengers traveling. | |
| max_price | No | Maximum price in the selected market currency for flight results. | |
| max_stops | No | Maximum number of stops allowed in the flight itinerary. | |
| cabin_class | No | Preferred cabin class: economy, premium_economy, business, or first. | economy |
| destination | Yes | Destination airport code for flight search. | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of flight results to return. | |
| return_date | No | Optional return date in YYYY-MM-DD format for round-trip flights. | |
| departure_date | Yes | Departure date in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| infants_on_lap | No | Number of infants traveling on an adult's lap. | |
| infants_in_seat | No | Number of infants traveling with their own seat. | |
| airlines_exclude | No | Airline codes to specifically exclude from search results. | |
| airlines_include | No | Airline codes to specifically include in search results. | |
| allow_self_transfer | No | Whether to include self-transfer flight options (true or false). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| origin | Yes | Origin airport details for flight search. |
| destination | Yes | Destination airport details for flight search. |
| itineraries | Yes | List of flight itineraries. |
| return_date | No | Scheduled return date for round-trip flights (YYYY-MM-DD). |
| departure_date | Yes | Scheduled departure date (YYYY-MM-DD). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context by noting results include a preferred booking link and top-level booking_url, which is not captured in annotations.
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?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and key output details without extraneous information. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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?
Given 16 parameters and existing output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and output features. Could mention filtering capabilities but not necessary due to schema coverage.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it focuses on overall purpose and output.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Search', resource 'flight prices', scope 'one-way or round-trip', and specifies IATA airport codes. It also distinguishes from sibling tool search_airports by focusing on prices rather than airport lookup.
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 guidance on when to use versus alternatives, though the description implies use for flight pricing queries. Sibling tool search_airports is for airport code discovery, but no direct comparison is made.
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!