google-flights-mcp

get_price_history

Retrieve the recorded price history for a specific route, showing past observations and trends to help decide when to book.

Instructions

View the recorded price history for a tracked route. Shows all past observations and the trend.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "origin": "<origin>",
      "destination": "<destination>",
      "departureDate": "<departureDate>"
    },
    "name": "get_price_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`origin`	Yes	Departure airport IATA code
`cabinClass`	No		economy
`destination`	Yes	Arrival airport IATA code
`departureDate`	Yes	Travel date (YYYY-MM-DD)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('view') and mentions 'all past observations and the trend', but lacks details on data freshness, pagination, or limits. For a simple read, this is adequate but not thorough.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource efficiently.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description hints at the return shape ('all past observations and the trend'), but could be more specific (e.g., includes date and price fields). Still, it covers the core functionality for a simple read tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'View' and the resource 'recorded price history for a tracked route', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_flights or get_price_insights.

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 implies that this tool is for viewing past price data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server