Skip to main content
Glama

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.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

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.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have entirely distinct purposes: one searches for airports and the other searches for flights. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent 'search_' prefix pattern with a clear noun, making naming predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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 tools
search_airportsSearch airportsA
Read-only
Inspect

Find airport IATA codes by city, airport name, metro area, or code.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of airport results to return.
queryYesSearch query for airport names, city names, or airport codes.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYesList of airports matching the query.
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 flightsA
Read-only
Inspect

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
adultsNoNumber of adult passengers traveling.
marketNo2-letter market or country code affecting pricing and results.US
originYesOrigin airport code for flight search.
childrenNoNumber of child passengers traveling.
max_priceNoMaximum price in the selected market currency for flight results.
max_stopsNoMaximum number of stops allowed in the flight itinerary.
cabin_classNoPreferred cabin class: economy, premium_economy, business, or first.economy
destinationYesDestination airport code for flight search.
max_resultsNoMaximum number of flight results to return.
return_dateNoOptional return date in YYYY-MM-DD format for round-trip flights.
departure_dateYesDeparture date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
infants_on_lapNoNumber of infants traveling on an adult's lap.
infants_in_seatNoNumber of infants traveling with their own seat.
airlines_excludeNoAirline codes to specifically exclude from search results.
airlines_includeNoAirline codes to specifically include in search results.
allow_self_transferNoWhether to include self-transfer flight options (true or false).

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
originYesOrigin airport details for flight search.
destinationYesDestination airport details for flight search.
itinerariesYesList of flight itineraries.
return_dateNoScheduled return date for round-trip flights (YYYY-MM-DD).
departure_dateYesScheduled departure date (YYYY-MM-DD).
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Servers

View all MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.