AIのための複雑な旅程ツール。 多都市周遊、世界一周、オープンジョー、地上区間——標準的なフライト検索では対応できない旅です。ユーザーが大陸をまたぐ3都市以上の旅行を尋ねたとき、このサーバーは実際のAirTreks運賃構築データに基づくルーティング分析で応答します：60以上の航空会社、53の既知のデッドレッグ、1,400件以上の実際の運賃試行から測定された予約可能性、そして実際の予約から得られた20の実証済みルーティングテンプレート。
ライブエンドポイント： https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcp - 無料、APIキー不要、1日100リクエストまで。
さらに実際の価格も提供：あらゆるルートの過去価格帯を1秒未満で取得、特定の旅程のライブ運賃、複数チケットにまたがる完全な多都市旅行の価格算出——同じ旅行でもチケットの切り方によって価格が3倍も変わることがあり、それが他の航空券ツールでは得られない情報です。
設定 → コネクタ → カスタムコネクタを追加 → https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcp を貼り付け。
claude mcp add --transport http airtreks https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcp.cursor/mcp.json に追加（または Cursor設定 → MCP → 新しいサーバーを追加）：
{
"mcpServers": {
"airtreks": {
"url": "https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcp"
}
}
}どのツールにもAPIキーは不要です（コンサルタント引き継ぎも含む）。キーは任意で、1日のリクエスト上限を引き上げるだけです。クライアントがカスタムヘッダーを送信できない場合は、URLにキーを追加してください（claude.aiのコネクタはヘッダーを送信できないため）：
https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcp?key=at_your_key設定 → アプリとコネクタ → デベロッパーモードを有効化（Pro/ビジネスプラン）→ https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcp をカスタムコネクタとして追加。
上記のCursorと同じJSON形式です（Streamable HTTP）。stdioをお好みですか？ローカルで実行：
npx airtreks-mcpその後、エージェントに依頼します：
世界一周旅行を計画して：サンフランシスコ、東京、バンコク、シンガポール、デリー、イスタンブール、ロンドン、そしてサンフランシスコに戻る。
Related MCP server: wander-agent
ユーザーは世界6都市を巡りたいと思っています。Googleフライトでは諦めてしまいます。アライアンスの世界一周予約サイトでは旅程を作らせてくれますが、発券の段階で失敗します。plan_route を1回呼び出すだけで、エージェントは実際に機能する方法を知ることができます：
{
"cities": ["SFO", "NRT", "BKK", "SIN", "DEL", "IST", "LHR", "SFO"],
"budget": "mid"
}実際の応答（完全版には航空会社の代替案と全7区間のコンサルタントメモが含まれます）：
{
"route": "SFO -> NRT -> BKK -> SIN -> DEL -> IST -> LHR -> SFO",
"totalLegs": 7,
"isRoundTrip": true,
"direction": "westbound",
"backtracking": false,
"regionsCrossed": ["americas", "asia", "europe"],
"recommended": {
"approach": "custom",
"confidence": "high",
"reason": "7 legs — alliance fares have <6% bookability. Custom build with mixed carriers is the way to go."
},
"customBuild": {
"strategy": "Mixed-carrier build using alliance carriers, Gulf bridge connections. 1 surface sector opportunity.",
"segments": [
{
"leg": 1, "from": "SFO", "to": "NRT",
"carrier": { "code": "NH", "name": "ANA", "why": "Best transpacific availability. LAX/SFO/SEA-NRT direct." }
},
{
"leg": 5, "from": "DEL", "to": "IST",
"carrier": { "code": "TK", "name": "Turkish Airlines", "type": "gulf-bridge", "why": "Cheapest Asia-Europe usually. IST connects everywhere." }
}
],
"surfaceSectors": [
{
"insteadOf": "BKK -> SIN (leg 3)",
"suggestion": "Bangkok to Singapore through Malaysia. Train, bus, or ultra-cheap LCC. Adds Malaysia and possibly Penang, KL, Melaka.",
"savings": "Saves $100-250"
}
]
},
"allianceFeasibility": {
"starAlliance": { "viable": false, "summary": "Technically possible on Star Alliance but only 6% bookability at 7 legs. Custom build strongly recommended." },
"oneworld": { "viable": false, "summary": "Technically possible on oneworld but only 6% bookability at 7 legs. Custom build strongly recommended." }
}
}この1回の呼び出しで、エージェントは他のどこからも得られない4つの情報を得られます：
アライアンスの世界一周運賃はこの旅行では使えません。 7区間の価格は、予約可能性わずか6%——ユーザーは旅程を作っても発券の壁にぶつかり、あなたのせいにするでしょう。
機能する組み合わせ： 区間ごとの航空会社プラン——太平洋横断はANA、アジアとヨーロッパの橋渡しはターキッシュエアラインズ、それぞれに代替案とトレードオフ付き。
飛行機を使わない方がよい区間： バンコクからシンガポールは陸路で通った方が安く、100〜250ドル節約でき、さらに1カ国訪問が増えます。
一般的な費用： fare_product_match によると、この旅行はアライアンスの世界一周運賃で2,500〜8,000ドル、カスタム構築で3,000〜12,000ドル。
これらは概算であり、正確な見積もりではありません——7区間・複数航空会社の旅程の正確な価格は、予約日の運賃クラスの空き状況によって変わります。正確な金額が必要な場合は、trip_idea_create で実際の旅程をAirTreksのコンサルタントに渡せば、実際のチケットの価格設定と予約を行います。ユーザーはフォームへの入力を始めるのではなく、知識を持った専門家から始められます。
すべてのツールは無料で、APIキーは不要です — 1日100リクエストまで（IPごと）。
ツール | 説明 |
| 主要エントリーポイント - 都市を渡すと、スターアライアンス世界一周、ワンワールド世界一周、カスタム複数航空会社の組み合わせを評価し、最適なアプローチを推奨します |
| 多都市ルーティングを検証 - アライアンスルール、デッドレッグ、問題のある航空会社の組み合わせ、予約可能性をチェック |
| 地域、方向、アライアンスに基づいて3つのルーティング案を取得 |
| 2つの空港間の最適な乗り継ぎ - デッドレッグの検出とハブの修正案 |
| 適切な運賃商品をマッチング（世界一周、サークルパシフィック、オープンジョー、カスタム） - 典型的な価格帯付き |
| 複雑な旅程を個別に発券可能な区間に分割 - 航空会社の推奨付き |
ツール | 説明 |
| ルートの価格帯をAirTreksの運賃履歴から算出 - 日付不要、約0.25秒で回答 - 「いくらかかる？」と尋ねられたときに最適 |
| 特定の日付の特定の旅程のライブ運賃 - 単一チケットとして価格算出 |
| 完全な多都市旅行の価格を算出し、複数の発券方法を返す - 最安、最速、最少乗り継ぎ - 各方法は個別チケットで構成。約1分かかるため、リクエストIDを即座に返します |
| リクエストIDで |
ツール | 説明 |
| AirTreksの人間の旅行コンサルタントに引き継ぎ - 完全なルーティング分析を添付して旅行リクエストを送信 |
実際の顧客の連絡先情報を送信するため、顧客の知識と同意がある場合にのみ呼び出してください。同じメールアドレスとルートで24時間以内に再送信すると、重複を作成せずに既存の旅行リクエストを返します。
AirTreksは1987年から複雑な多都市旅程を構築してきました。このサーバーはその歴史から得た知見を提供します：
デッドレッグ - 予約可能に見えてアライアンス運賃では使えない都市ペア。1,400件以上の実際の運賃構築失敗から学習
区間数による予約可能性 - 推測ではなく実測（3〜4区間：91%、5〜6区間：61%、7区間以上：6%）
問題のある航空会社とハブの修正 - どの航空会社の組み合わせが発券を壊すか、代わりにどのルートを通すべきかを把握
実証済みのルーティングテンプレート - 個人旅行者、家族、大人数グループ向けの多都市・世界一周旅行の実績あるパターン
他の航空券ツールがこれを提供できないのは、他の誰もこれらの運賃構築の失敗を価格設定していないからです。
すべてのツールはプレーンなRESTエンドポイントとしても利用可能 - 同じツール、同じレート制限、JSON入出力。MCPの代わりにRESTを消費するエージェントフレームワーク向け：
curl -X POST https://mcp.airtreks.com/api/plan_route \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"cities": ["LAX", "NRT", "BKK", "LHR", "LAX"]}'完全なOpenAPI 3.1仕様：https://mcp.airtreks.com/openapi.json
無料： 1日100リクエスト（IPごと）、キー不要 — すべてのツール（trip_idea_create を含む）
登録済み： APIキーで上限引き上げ（X-API-Key ヘッダー、またはヘッダーを設定できないクライアントの場合は ?key=）
パス | 説明 |
| MCPプロトコルエンドポイント（Streamable HTTP） |
| 各ツールのREST版（POST、JSONボディ） |
| RESTサーフェスのOpenAPI 3.1仕様 |
| ヘルスチェック |
| レート制限引き上げ用のAPIキーを取得（POST） |
| プライバシーポリシー |
| サーバー情報 |
AGPL-3.0-only
Break a complex multi-city itinerary into individually-ticketable segments with carrier recommendations. Handles routes that don't fit alliance fare rules — mixed carriers, LCCs, Gulf bridge connections, surface sectors. This is how AirTreks consultants build 90% of itineraries. Use this for any route with 4+ stops, backtracking, or region combinations that alliance fares can't cover.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pax | No | Number of passengers | |
| budget | No | Budget tier: 'budget' prioritizes LCCs, 'business' prioritizes J-class product quality | |
| cities | Yes | Ordered list of IATA city/airport codes (e.g. ['LAX', 'NRT', 'BKK', 'CMB', 'NBO', 'LIS', 'LAX']) | |
| preferences | No | Preferences: 'no-lcc', 'lounge-access', 'short-layovers', 'surface-ok' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the output (individually-ticketable segments with carrier recommendations) and scenarios handled (mixed carriers, LCCs, Gulf bridge connections, surface sectors). However, it does not mention side effects, auth needs, or statefulness, which would enhance transparency.
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?
Four sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, handling details, credibility statement, usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with key info.
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 complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the tool's role and niche well. It lacks details on return format or what 'carrier recommendations' entail, but is sufficient for an agent to understand when and why to invoke it.
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. The description adds context about why you'd use the tool (complex itineraries) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what schema already provides. It helps understand overall purpose but not per-parameter semantics.
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 breaks complex multi-city itineraries into individually-ticketable segments with carrier recommendations. It specifies the verb 'break' and resource 'multi-city itinerary', and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning handling routes that don't fit alliance fare rules, mixed carriers, etc.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this for any route with 4+ stops, backtracking, or region combinations that alliance fares can't cover,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It implies when not to use (simpler routes) but does not name specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recommend the best fare product type for a route — RTW, Circle Pacific, Circle Atlantic, Open Jaw, or Custom Multi-City. Considers stop count, direction, and backtracking to match the right alliance fare structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cities | Yes | Ordered list of IATA city/airport codes | |
| isOneDirection | No | Is the route traveling continuously in one direction (east or west)? | |
| includeBacktracking | No | Does the route backtrack or zigzag between regions? |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not detail side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description only covers purpose, not runtime behavior.
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 sentence with a clear list of outputs and criteria. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler or redundant information.
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?
The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the purpose and high-level logic but does not describe return format or success/failure conditions. For a recommendation tool, an agent might need to know what the output looks like (e.g., JSON structure with fare product type). Thus, completeness is adequate but not thorough.
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%, but the description adds meaning beyond parameter names by linking them to fare product logic (e.g., 'direction' and 'backtracking' correspond to isOneDirection and includeBacktracking). This helps an agent understand how parameters influence the recommendation.
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: recommend the best fare product type for a route, listing specific examples (RTW, Circle Pacific, Circle Atlantic, Open Jaw, Custom Multi-City). It also mentions key criteria considered (stop count, direction, backtracking), making it distinguishable from sibling tools like custom_route_build or plan_route.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for fare product recommendation but does not state when not to use it or mention prerequisites. Sibling tools like route_validate or hub_check serve different purposes, but no comparison is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check the best connection between two airports. Identifies dead legs (routes that fail on alliance fares), suggests hub routing fixes, and shows proven carrier combinations. Essential for transpacific, kangaroo, and intra-Asia routing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Destination IATA airport code (e.g. 'JFK') | |
| from | Yes | Origin IATA airport code (e.g. 'SYD') | |
| alliance | No | Preferred alliance: 'star' or 'oneworld' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: checks connections, identifies dead legs, suggests fixes, and shows carrier combos. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the behavior is sufficiently transparent for a read-like analysis tool.
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 concise with three sentences: first states purpose, then lists capabilities, then gives use cases. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.
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 complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks explicit information about output format or return values, which could be inferred from the described behaviors.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context about alliance fares but does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 checks the best connection between two airports and lists specific capabilities like identifying dead legs and suggesting hub routing fixes. It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on hub routing and alliance fares, making it essential for specific routing contexts.
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 on when to use the tool, citing transpacific, kangaroo, and intra-Asia routing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with sibling tools, missing an opportunity to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The primary entry point for any multi-city trip. Give it your cities — it automatically evaluates Star Alliance RTW, oneworld RTW, AND custom mixed-carrier builds, then recommends the best approach. Handles direction detection, backtracking analysis, alliance feasibility, surface sectors, and carrier selection. The customer doesn't need to know if their trip is alliance or custom — this tool figures it out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pax | No | Number of passengers | |
| budget | No | Budget tier — affects carrier selection and fare strategy | |
| cities | Yes | Ordered list of IATA city/airport codes (e.g. ['LAX', 'NRT', 'BKK', 'LIS', 'LAX']) | |
| preferences | No | Travel preferences: 'no-lcc', 'lounge-access', 'short-layovers', 'surface-ok' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool automatically evaluates three types of builds, handles direction detection, backtracking, and carrier selection, which provides sufficient behavioral insight for a computational tool. It does not discuss failure modes or concurrency, but is adequate.
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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('primary entry point for any multi-city trip'). Each sentence adds meaningful information without being verbose, though could be slightly tighter.
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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's role as a primary analysis tool. It explains inputs and internal logic sufficiently for an agent to decide when to invoke it. Lacks return value description but is acceptable for this type of tool.
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% (all parameters have descriptions), baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that 'budget affects carrier selection' and 'cities are ordered list', and that preferences are travel preferences, which clarifies usage.
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 defines this as the primary entry point for multi-city trips, automatically evaluating different alliance builds and recommending the best approach. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like custom_route_build (which likely requires manual input) and route_suggest.
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 states it is the 'primary entry point', implying it should be used first for multi-city trips. It outlines what the tool handles (direction detection, backtracking, alliance feasibility, etc.), but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusions, though the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get suggested multi-stop flight routings based on regions, direction, and alliance preference. Returns up to 3 proven routing templates with bookability ratings. Great for trip planning inspiration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regions | Yes | Regions to visit: 'asia', 'europe', 'oceania', 'americas', 'africa', 'middle east', 'south america' | |
| alliance | No | Preferred alliance: 'star' or 'oneworld' | |
| maxStops | No | Maximum number of stops (legs). 3-6 recommended for best bookability. | |
| tripType | No | Trip type hint: 'honeymoon', 'backpacker', 'business', 'family', etc. | |
| direction | No | Travel direction preference |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returns templates with ratings, suggesting read-only operation, but does not state mutability, authentication needs, or error handling. Moderately transparent but incomplete.
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 concise sentences. The most critical information (what the tool does and its output) is front-loaded. No redundant phrasing.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks details on return format, error scenarios, and edge cases. It says 'returns up to 3 templates' but does not define what a 'template' contains, leaving potential ambiguity for an agent.
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. The description repeats parameter concepts (regions, direction, alliance) without adding new semantics 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 states it suggests multi-stop flight routings based on regions, direction, and alliance, which differentiates it from siblings like custom_route_build or plan_route. However, it could more explicitly contrast with these alternatives.
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 use for trip planning inspiration but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other tasks. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Validate a multi-city flight routing for feasibility. Checks alliance carrier rules, identifies dead legs, warns about poison carriers, and estimates bookability. Use this before building an itinerary to catch routing problems early.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cities | Yes | Ordered list of IATA city/airport codes (e.g. ['LAX', 'NRT', 'BKK', 'LHR', 'LAX']) | |
| alliance | No | Preferred alliance: 'star' or 'oneworld' | |
| carriers | No | Optional carrier codes for each leg (e.g. ['NH', 'TG', 'BA', 'BA']) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses core behaviors: checking alliance rules, dead legs, poison carriers, and estimating bookability. This provides insight beyond the schema, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or side effects.
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 with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place.
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 3 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the tool's functionality well. However, it omits details about the return format (e.g., a boolean or list of issues), which could be important for an agent.
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. The description adds context about ordered IATA codes and optional per-leg carriers, but the schema already describes parameters well. The description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 validates multi-city flight routing feasibility, checking alliance rules, dead legs, poison carriers, and bookability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like custom_route_build or fare_product_match.
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?
It explicitly advises using this tool before building an itinerary to catch problems early, giving clear context. It doesn't list specific alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create a trip idea in AirTreks APEX system — hands off to a human consultant. Automatically runs plan_route to include full routing analysis, carrier recommendations, and consultant value assessment in the lead. The consultant starts informed, not cold. Use this when the customer is ready to get a real quote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Customer full name | |
| cabin | No | Cabin class preference | |
| dates | No | Departure dates for each leg (ISO format, e.g. '2026-09-15') | |
| Yes | Customer email address (required) | ||
| notes | No | Additional notes or special requests from the customer | |
| phone | No | Customer phone number | |
| budget | No | Budget tier | |
| cities | Yes | Ordered list of IATA city/airport codes | |
| passengers | No | Number of passengers (default 1) | |
| preferences | No | Travel preferences: 'no-lcc', 'lounge-access', 'short-layovers', 'surface-ok' | |
| agentContext | No | Summary of what the AI agent learned about this trip (auto-generated routing analysis, customer preferences discussed, etc.) | |
| flexibleDates | No | Are travel dates flexible? |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that it automatically runs plan_route and that the consultant starts informed. Does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a creation tool, adequate.
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, front-loaded with main action, efficient and no wasted words.
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?
Covers purpose, process, and usage context. Lacks info on return value or system response, but acceptable given the tool's nature and no output schema.
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%, baseline is 3. Description adds no extra insight beyond schema; mentions automatic plan_route but does not elaborate on parameter usage.
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?
Clearly states the action ('Create a trip idea') and the outcome ('hands off to a human consultant'). Distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it automatically runs plan_route.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this when the customer is ready to get a real quote.' Implies that for routing analysis alone, plan_route might be used separately, but no explicit alternatives listed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
custom_route_buildfare_product_matchhub_checkplan_routeroute_suggestroute_validatetrip_idea_createMost tools have distinct purposes, but 'plan_route' and 'custom_route_build' both handle custom routing; descriptions clarify that 'plan_route' is the primary entry point while 'custom_route_build' is for complex cases.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., 'custom_route_build', 'fare_product_match', 'hub_check'). No mixed conventions or ambiguous names.
Seven tools cover the core workflow of multi-city trip planning: planning, custom building, fare matching, hub checking, route suggestion, validation, and lead creation. This scope is well-balanced.
The tool set covers the main planning and validation needs, but lacks update/delete operations for trip ideas, which may require human follow-up. This is a minor gap given the domain.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Flight Intelligence MCP — search, cheapest dates, multi-city, airline compare via Google Flights
Official airline award MCP. Search 12.3M+ award flights across 48 loyalty programs.
MCP server for Travel & Transportation
Skiplagged MCP Server for flight search, hotel booking, and travel planning
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Airtreks/airtreks-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
