The AirTreks MCP server is a specialized tool for planning and analyzing complex multi-stop flight itineraries (round-the-world, open-jaw, surface segments) that standard flight search engines can't handle. It uses real AirTreks fare-construction data, routing templates, and bookability analytics.
Core capabilities:
Plan complex routes (plan_route) — The primary entry point: provide an ordered list of city/airport codes and get a comprehensive analysis that evaluates Star Alliance RTW, oneworld RTW, and custom mixed-carrier builds, with confidence ratings, carrier suggestions, and bookability estimates.
Validate routings (route_validate) — Check multi-city routings against alliance carrier rules, identify known "dead legs," warn about poison carrier combinations, and get a bookability estimate.
Get route suggestions (route_suggest) — Discover up to 3 proven routing templates based on regions, travel direction (eastbound/westbound), alliance preference, max stops, and trip type.
Check hub connections (hub_check) — Find the best connections between two airports, detect dead legs, and get hub routing fixes and proven carrier combinations.
Match fare products (fare_product_match) — Determine the most suitable fare product (RTW, Circle Pacific, Circle Atlantic, Open Jaw, Custom Multi-City) with typical price ranges.
Build custom routes (custom_route_build) — Break complex itineraries into individually-ticketable segments with carrier recommendations, handling mixed carriers, LCCs, Gulf bridge connections, and surface sectors.
Hand off to a human consultant (trip_idea_create, API key required) — Send a fully analyzed trip to an AirTreks human consultant for real pricing and booking, with routing analysis attached automatically.
Key data behind the tools:
53 known dead legs from 1,400+ real fare-construction failures
Measured bookability rates by leg count (91% at 3–4 legs, 61% at 5–6, 6% at 7+)
60+ carrier database with poison-carrier and hub-fix data
20 proven routing templates from actual AirTreks bookings
Access: Free tier allows 100 requests/day with no API key. A registered tier with higher limits is available via an X-API-Key header (register at POST https://mcp.airtreks.com/register).
The complex-itinerary tool for AI agents. Multi-stop, round-the-world, open-jaw, surface segments - the trips that standard flight search can't handle. When your user asks for 3+ stops across continents, this server answers with routing analysis built on real AirTreks fare-construction data: 60+ carriers, 53 known dead legs, bookability rates measured from 1,400+ real fare attempts, and 20 proven routing templates from actual bookings.
Live endpoint: https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcp - free, no API key, 100 requests/day.
Now with real prices: a historical range for any route in under a second, live fares for a specific itinerary, and a full multi-stop trip priced across several tickets — the same trip can vary three-fold depending on how it is ticketed, and that is the part no other flight tool will tell you.
Settings → Connectors → Add custom connector → paste https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcp.
claude mcp add --transport http airtreks https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcpAdd to .cursor/mcp.json (or Cursor Settings → MCP → Add new server):
{
"mcpServers": {
"airtreks": {
"url": "https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcp"
}
}
}No API key is needed for any tool, the consultant handoff included. A key is optional and only raises your daily limit; append it to the URL if your client cannot send custom headers, as claude.ai connectors cannot:
https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcp?key=at_your_keySettings → Apps & Connectors → enable Developer mode (Pro/Business plans) → add https://mcp.airtreks.com/mcp as a custom connector.
Same JSON shape as Cursor above (Streamable HTTP). Prefer stdio? Run it locally:
npx airtreks-mcpThen ask your agent:
Plan a round-the-world trip: San Francisco, Tokyo, Bangkok, Singapore, Delhi, Istanbul, London, back to San Francisco.
Related MCP server: wander-agent
Your user wants six stops around the world. Google Flights gives up. Alliance RTW booking sites will let them build it, then fail at ticketing. One plan_route call tells your agent what actually works:
{
"cities": ["SFO", "NRT", "BKK", "SIN", "DEL", "IST", "LHR", "SFO"],
"budget": "mid"
}Real response, trimmed for length (the full version includes carrier alternatives and consultant notes for all 7 legs):
{
"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." }
}
}That single call just told your agent four things it can't get anywhere else:
Alliance RTW fares fail on this trip. 7 legs prices at 6% bookability - your user would build it, hit a wall at ticketing, and blame you.
The build that works: a per-leg carrier plan - ANA transpacific, Turkish Airlines as the Asia-Europe bridge, each with alternatives and trade-offs.
Where to not fly at all: Bangkok to Singapore is cheaper overland through Malaysia, saving $100-250 and adding a country.
What it typically costs: fare_product_match puts this trip at $2,500-$8,000 economy on an alliance RTW fare, typically $3,000-$12,000 as a custom build.
Those are honest ranges, not quotes - exact pricing on a 7-leg mixed-carrier itinerary depends on fare-class availability the day you book. For a real number, trip_idea_create hands the full routing analysis to an AirTreks consultant who prices and books the actual ticket. Your user gets an expert who starts informed, not a form to fill out.
All tools are free and need no API key — 100 requests/day per IP.
Tool | Description |
| Primary entry point - give it cities, it evaluates Star Alliance RTW, oneworld RTW, and custom mixed-carrier builds, then recommends the best approach |
| Validate a multi-city routing - alliance rules, dead legs, poison carriers, bookability |
| Get 3 suggested routings by region, direction, and alliance |
| Best connection between two airports - dead leg detection + hub fixes |
| Match the right fare product (RTW, Circle Pacific/Atlantic, Open Jaw, Custom) with typical price ranges |
| Break complex itineraries into individually-ticketable segments with carrier recommendations |
Tool | Description |
| Price range for a route from AirTreks fare history. No dates needed, answers in about a quarter of a second — the right tool when someone asks "what will this cost?" before anything is decided |
| Live fares for one specific itinerary on specific dates, priced as a single ticket |
| Prices a whole multi-stop trip and returns several ways to ticket it — cheapest, fastest, fewest stops — with the tickets each one is built from. Takes about a minute, so it returns a reference immediately |
| Fetches an |
Tool | Description |
| Hand off to an AirTreks human travel consultant - submits the trip request with the full routing analysis attached |
Submits real customer contact details, so only call it with the customer's knowledge and consent. Repeat submissions of the same email + route inside 24 hours return the existing trip request rather than creating a duplicate.
AirTreks has built complex multi-stop itineraries since 1987. This server exposes what that history taught us:
Dead legs - city pairs that look bookable but fail on alliance fares, learned from 1,400+ real fare-construction failures
Bookability rates by leg count - measured, not estimated (91% at 3-4 legs, 61% at 5-6, 6% at 7+)
Poison carriers and hub fixes - we know what airline combinations break ticketing and what to route instead
Proven routing templates from working with Multi-Stop and Around the World Intineraries for inviduals, families and large group
No other flight tool returns this because no other flight tool has priced these failures.
Every tool is also a plain REST endpoint - same tools, same rate limits, JSON in/out. For agent frameworks that consume REST instead of MCP:
curl -X POST https://mcp.airtreks.com/api/plan_route \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"cities": ["LAX", "NRT", "BKK", "LHR", "LAX"]}'Full OpenAPI 3.1 spec: https://mcp.airtreks.com/openapi.json
Free: 100 requests/day per IP, no key needed — every tool, trip_idea_create included
Registered: higher limits with an API key (X-API-Key header, or ?key= for clients that cannot set headers)
Path | Description |
| MCP protocol endpoint (Streamable HTTP) |
| REST twin of each tool (POST, JSON body) |
| OpenAPI 3.1 spec for the REST surface |
| Health check |
| Get an API key for a higher rate limit (POST) |
| Privacy policy |
| AirTreks mark — the icon AI directories show for this server |
| Server info |
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
