Deal Radar MCP Server

list_flight_providers

Retrieve all supported flight search engines, airlines, and aggregators with their deep-linking templates and fee rules so you can compare available booking options.

Instructions

List all supported flight search engines, airlines, and aggregators with their deep-linking templates and fee rules.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_flight_providers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and "List all supported" clearly signals a non-destructive, no-argument read. It also discloses the shape of the payload (deep-linking templates and fee rules), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or freshness, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource scope stated before the returned metadata. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and what comes back with each entry, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps around result ordering or whether the list is exhaustive of all configured providers are not addressed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and a precise resource scope: flight search engines, airlines, and aggregators, plus the metadata included (deep-linking templates, fee rules). An agent can distinguish this catalog read from mutations like add_flight_provider or the analogous list_supported_stores. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is a discovery/catalog read, so an agent can infer it should be called before provider-specific operations like get_flight_itinerary_links. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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