Deal Radar MCP Server

add_flight_provider

Register a new flight website or aggregator so Deal Radar MCP can automatically generate exact itinerary landing links for its fares.

Instructions

Dynamically register a new flight website or aggregator so Deal Radar MCP can automatically generate exact itinerary landing links for it.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "category": "<category>",
      "urlTemplate": "<urlTemplate>"
    },
    "name": "add_flight_provider"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Unique identifier (e.g. "expedia")
`name`	Yes	Display name (e.g. "Expedia Flights")
`category`	Yes	Platform category
`promoCode`	No	Optional default promo code
`urlTemplate`	Yes	URL template with placeholders like {origin}, {dest}, {date:DD/MM/YYYY}, {date:YYYY-MM-DD}, {date:DDMMYYYY}, {pax}, {cabin:letter}, etc.
`defaultConvenienceFeePerPax`	No	Optional convenience fee in ₹ per passenger

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden, and it does disclose one behavioral consequence: the provider becomes usable for automatic link generation. It says nothing about persistence, whether a duplicate id errors or overwrites, or how urlTemplate is validated, which are the key unknowns for a registration/mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the rationale second; no filler. It is tight, though the brevity leaves nothing to address operational caveats.

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?

For a 6-parameter, 4-required registration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the what and why but not duplicate handling, ordering relative to list_flight_providers, or what registration returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so all six parameters (including the urlTemplate placeholder syntax and the category enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only loose mapping of 'website or aggregator' to the category, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb ('register') plus a concrete resource ('a new flight website or aggregator') and states the downstream purpose — enabling exact itinerary landing links. That distinguishes it from read-side siblings like get_flight_itinerary_links or list_flight_providers, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It implies the situation for use (you want landing links for a provider the system does not yet know), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules, no advice to check list_flight_providers first to avoid duplicate ids, and no mention of prerequisites or ordering.

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