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
- Repository
- gusgordon/ignav-skill
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- Ignav Flights MCP Server
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 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have entirely distinct purposes: one searches for airports and the other searches for flights. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent 'search_' prefix pattern with a clear noun, making naming predictable and easy to understand.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal for its stated purpose of flight searching. While it covers the essential operations, the small count is borderline for a travel-related server.
The server covers the core search functionality and provides booking links, but lacks additional flight management features like booking confirmation or cancellation, which are minor gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolssearch_airportsSearch 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal extra behavioral context. It aligns with the safe, read-only nature but does not disclose further traits.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key purpose and input types. Every word is essential, no redundancy.
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 the presence of an output schema and simple input schema (2 params, all described), the description is complete. It covers the search scope and aligns with the tool's intended use.
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% with both parameters described. The description adds meaning by explicitly listing 'metro area' and 'code' as searchable fields, which goes beyond the schema's generic description.
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's purpose: 'Find airport IATA codes by city, airport name, metro area, or code.' It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling 'search_flights' which deals with flights.
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 provides clear input types (city, airport name, metro area, code) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_flights'. The context is clear and no exclusions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_flightsSearch 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?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: that results are filtered to itineraries with a preferred booking link and that each itinerary includes a top-level booking_url. No contradictions 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 the tool's complexity (16 parameters, all with schema descriptions) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and return value structure. It covers the key aspects without needing to detail every parameter.
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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add any additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specifies the verb 'search', the resource 'flight prices', and the constraints 'between two IATA airport codes' and 'one-way or round-trip'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_airports' by focusing on flights.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching flight prices) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling tool. However, the distinction from 'search_airports' is clear.
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!
Related MCP Servers
Flicense-qualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to help users find better prices for flights they have already discovered, by comparing prices across multiple booking sources.Last updated32- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceEnables live flight search and pricing via the Duffel Flights API, allowing AI agents to query flight data and pricing.Last updated26MIT
- Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceFlight search for AI agents: flexible-date cheapest round-trips with a good-price verdict from historical data. Hosted remote MCP, free, no key.Last updatedMIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAI-native travel search MCP with affiliate booking links and optional x402 premium intelligence.Last updated525MIT
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.