Skip to main content
Glama
afgoes

cheapdates-mcp

by afgoes
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is zero ambiguity—an agent cannot confuse it with any other. The tool's purpose is clearly described.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The single tool name 'cheapest_dates_tool' is descriptive but uses a bare noun with a redundant 'tool' suffix rather than a verb_noun pattern. Since there is no set of names to compare, it is not inconsistent, but the naming style is slightly unconventional.

    Tool Count3/5

    The server exposes only one tool, which is at the borderline of being too thin. While the tool encapsulates a coherent function, a larger set (e.g., specific date lookup, fare alerts) could better justify a dedicated MCP server.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool fully covers the stated purpose—finding cheapest fares across a date range. It supports one-way and round-trip queries, provides pricing and airline details, and handles backend selection automatically. Minor gaps like booking integration or fare alerts are outside its shown scope.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • 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.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the behavior of different backends (graph vs sweep vs auto) and mentions speed implications, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any data limitations, rate limits, or potential variability in results, which would be helpful for a tool using different search backends.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and provides structured information about trip_length and backend behavior. It uses bullet-like structure within paragraphs effectively, with no wasted words.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview but lacks detailed parameter explanations and behavioral notes. It covers the essential usage and return format but could be more complete by describing the meaning of the warning field, typical use cases, and edge cases like date boundaries.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has 9 parameters but the description does not explicitly map each parameter beyond trip_length and backend. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains a couple of parameters. The return structure is described, but parameter semantics for origin, destination, start, end, seat, nonstop, currency are left to the schema, which has no description.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool finds the cheapest fare for each departure date over a date range for a given route, distinguishing it from typical one-off price lookup tools. It specifies input format and return structure, making the purpose unambiguous.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description explains the trip_length parameter (one-way vs round trip) and backend options, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Since no sibling tools are provided, we cannot evaluate differentiation, but the description does give context on how to use different backends.

    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

cheapdates MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

cheapdates MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/afgoes/cheapdates'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server