Departi MCP Server
OfficialServer Quality Checklist
Latest release: v3.2.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct travel-related task (visa, Schengen, tax, accommodation, transport, experiences, profile) with no functional overlap. Agents can clearly differentiate purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent `departi_` prefix with an imperative verb_noun pattern (e.g., `check_visa`, `search_accommodation`). No naming conflicts or style mixing.
Tool Count5/57 tools is well-scoped for a European travel assistance server. Each tool covers a core need without redundancy or unnecessary complexity.
Completeness4/5Covers major travel planning areas: visa, Schengen tracking, tax, accommodation, transport, experiences, and user profile. Minor gaps like insurance or flight booking are acceptable for the stated scope.
Average 3.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description only adds that it returns pricing, stops, and booking links. It does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits or data freshness, but given the annotations, this 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence front-loading the core purpose and output. It is efficient, though it omits important scope details (e.g., mode). No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the mode parameter's options, return value structure, pagination, or error scenarios. Annotations provide safety profile but not usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no information about parameters. With 57% schema description coverage, the tool description does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions (e.g., passengers, return_date, departure_date). The meaning of the mode parameter is present in the schema but not reinforced in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is a flight search tool, but the tool name 'search_transport' and input schema mode parameter (all/flights/ground) suggest it may also cover ground transport, creating ambiguity. It does clearly state what it returns (pricing, stops, booking links).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., departi_search_accommodation, departi_search_experiences) but are not differentiated. No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, providing a safety profile. The description adds that results are 'scored by traveler type' and 'returns booking links,' which offers additional behavioral context without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains only that it returns booking links and is scored by traveler type, but lacks details on input constraints, default behaviors, or the full nature of output. More completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 30%, so the description must compensate. It references 'scored by traveler type,' relating to traveler_type and persona parameters, but does not explain other critical parameters like destination, checkin, checkout, or rooms. The description provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Accommodation search across European destinations.' It mentions specific features like scoring by traveler type and returning booking links, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like departi_search_experiences. However, it could further differentiate from other search tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like departi_search_transport or departi_search_experiences. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds minimal extra value beyond stating it returns booking links. No contradiction 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and output. No wasted words, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema and annotations, the description covers the basics but lacks details on how personality matching works, the nature of booking links, and pagination. 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.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 60%, but the description does not elaborate on any parameters. It hints at personality matching ('matched to traveler personality') but doesn't explain how persona or traveler_type parameters influence results. No added depth for undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool searches for tours, activities, and local experiences and returns booking links. The verb 'search' is implied, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like accommodation and transport. However, the description could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'Search for experiences').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding experiences but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like accommodation or transport. No when-not guidelines or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool covers 43 countries and various purposes, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., no mention of API limits or response format). No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and front-loads essential information: what it checks, number of countries, purposes covered, and added context. Every sentence adds value without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., visa eligibility, requirements list). For a check tool with 43 countries and multiple purposes, the output details are crucial for agent decision-making. The mention of 'destination context' is vague.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 67% coverage (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions personalization but does not clarify parameters like locale or currency. The schema already provides adequate details for required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool checks visa requirements for 43 European countries and covers multiple purposes (tourist, nomad, work, study, retirement). The name 'departi_check_visa' is self-explanatory, and sibling tools like 'departi_track_schengen' and 'departi_check_tax' are distinct, so purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for visa checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are given. The mention of personalization and coverage provides some context, but it lacks clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safety. Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: persistent tracking when registered and tax residency warnings. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 5 parameters including nested array, no output schema, and persistent tracking. Description does not explain return format, error handling, or how persistent tracking works. Incomplete for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. Only 'entries' is implicitly referenced; locale, currency, nationality, referenceDate are unexplained. Does not compensate for lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it's a Schengen 90/180 calculator with tax residency warnings and persistent tracking, distinguishing it from sibling tools like visa checking or tax checking. Verb 'track' plus specific scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage from description (for Schengen day tracking), but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor when not to use. Sibling tool names provide context but description itself lacks explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the analysis scope ('Treaties, DN regimes, social security') and the advisory nature, which adds value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, scope, and advisory nature. No extraneous content; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose but omits details on output format, parameter usage guidance, and edge cases. With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description could be more comprehensive to aid correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, with 3 of 9 parameters having descriptions. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings, leaving a significant gap. The description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'tax residency analysis' for 43 countries, specifying the resource (tax residency) and action (analysis). It distinguishes from sibling tools like departi_check_visa and departi_track_schengen by focusing on tax and social security.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for tax-related queries with 'Tax residency analysis' and 'Advisory only.' While no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, sibling tools cover distinct domains (visa, Schengen, transport), providing clear contextual separation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that authentication is required, which is a behavioral trait not covered by annotations. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but the added auth context is useful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a list of returned fields. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes only essential information. Every part serves a clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the lack of an output schema, the description clearly enumerates the return categories (preferences, travel history, subscription tier, compliance summary). For a simple read tool with good annotations, this sufficiently informs an agent of what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the 100% schema coverage confirms no parameters exist. The description adds no extra parameter info, but that is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a user profile with specific components (preferences, travel history, subscription tier, compliance summary). The name and description together provide a specific verb and resource, and the tool is distinct from siblings which handle visa checks, Schengen tracking, tax, and searches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving profile data and explicitly requires authentication. While it does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is clear and no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Departi/mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server