Navifare MCP Serverofficial
F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceEnables AI assistants to help users find better prices for flights they have already discovered, by comparing prices across multiple booking sources.
59
-
Ignav Flights
Server Details
Live flight prices and working booking links for AI agents and travel apps.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- gusgordon/ignav-skill
- GitHub Stars
- 1
- Server Listing
- Ignav Flights MCP Server
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools are completely distinct: one locates airport codes, the other searches flights. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern with 'search_' as the verb and a clear resource noun (airports, flights). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the server provides a minimal surface. While each tool is useful, the count feels thin and is at the borderline of what would be considered well-scoped.
Completeness5/5
For a flight-search domain, the tool pair covers the essential workflow: find airport codes first, then search flights. The described functionality includes both one-way and round-trip options and returns booking links, leaving no obvious gaps for basic searching.
Available Tools
2 toolssearch_airportsSearch airportsARead-onlyInspect
Find airport IATA codes by city, airport name, metro area, or code.
ParametersJSON Schema
| 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
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | List of airports matching the query. |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
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.
Conciseness5/5
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.
Completeness5/5
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.
Parameters4/5
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.
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 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| 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 or metro IATA code. | |
| 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 or metro IATA code. | |
| 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
ParametersJSON 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). |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that only itineraries with a preferred booking link are returned and that a top-level booking_url is included. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.
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 with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the result-filtering caveat is stated concisely. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the 16-parameter schema, full schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description does not need to explain every field. It provides the key behavioral caveat about booking links and top-level booking_url. A brief mention of when round-trip requires return_date would have been marginally useful, but the schema covers that.
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%, so the parameter schema fully documents each argument. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter details; the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('flight prices'), and explicit scope ('one-way or round-trip', 'between two IATA airport codes'). It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling search_airports since it addresses flights rather than airport data.
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 makes the usage context clear by specifying the search type, route format, and result filtering. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the resource distinction from search_airports is implicit and sufficient for basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- Changed
search_flights2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / destination / descriptionPrevious value: -"Destination airport code for flight search."New value: +"Destination airport or metro IATA code." - changed
Input schema / properties / origin / descriptionPrevious value: -"Origin airport code for flight search."New value: +"Origin airport or metro IATA code."
1 tool update
- Changed
search_flights2 fields changed- added
Output schema / properties / itineraries / items / properties / price / properties / statusAdded value: +{ + "description": "Whether the price was confirmed or is an unverified search hint.", + "enum": [ + "verified", + "unverified" + ], + "type": "string" +} - changed
Output schema / properties / itineraries / items / properties / price / requiredPrevious value: -[ - "amount", - "currency" -]New value: +[ + "amount", + "currency", + "status" +]
2 tool updates
- First observed
search_airports - First observed
search_flights
Related MCP Connectors
Flight search & booking for AI agents. 400+ airlines, $20-50 cheaper than OTAs.
Last-minute booking slots across 11 suppliers. Search, price, and execute bookings via AI agents.
AI marketplace — flights, tours, activities, transport & more via MCP. No auth required.
Google Flights search data: fares, routes, stops, and price insights via a hosted MCP server.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables live flight search and pricing via the Duffel Flights API, allowing AI agents to query flight data and pricing.17MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceFlight search for AI agents: flexible-date cheapest round-trips with a good-price verdict from historical data. Hosted remote MCP, free, no key.3MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables real-time flight fare searches across date ranges and multiple destinations, with historical price insights and booking links. Provides one-way and round-trip search tools through MCP.41MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.