viajante

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search hidden-city fares

search_hidden_city

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Skiplagged for opt-in hidden-city fares on a named route and date after standard flight results; confirm via booking_url before booking.

Instructions

Skiplagged search for a named route. Opt-in; never mixed with Google Flights. Run it once after search_flights on a named common route and date. Skip it for named bags, explore, dates, flex, multi-city and unproven destinations. Hidden-city tickets can violate airline contracts. Lead with hidden_city true rows and confirm on booking_url; Viajante does not book. currency is an optional keep of the card currency: Skiplagged cards are USD, so omit it or pass USD. A keep that matches no card is currency_mismatch. Nothing is converted.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top`	No
`route`	Yes
`adults`	No
`currency`	No
`departure`	Yes
`return_date`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`empty_note`	Yes
`error_code`	Yes
`observed_at`	Yes
`retry_after`	Yes
`completeness`	Yes
`empty_reason`	Yes
`observed_at_basis`	Yes
`retry_after_seconds`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv1.5.2Oct 19, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / adults / title
```
Removed value: -"Adults"
```
removedInput schema / properties / currency / title
```
Removed value: -"Currency"
```
removedInput schema / properties / departure / title
```
Removed value: -"Departure"
```
removedInput schema / properties / return_date / title
```
Removed value: -"Return Date"
```
removedInput schema / properties / route / title
```
Removed value: -"Route"
```
removedInput schema / properties / top / title
```
Removed value: -"Top"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"search_hidden_cityArguments"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "completeness": {
+      "enum": [
+        "complete",
+        "partial",
+        "blocked"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "empty_note": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "empty_reason": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "enum": [
+            "provider_empty",
+            "filtered_out",
+            "not_loaded"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "error_code": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "observed_at": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "observed_at_basis": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "enum": [
+            "provider",
+            "fetch"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "retry_after": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "retry_after_seconds": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "ok",
+        "no_results",
+        "rate_limited",
+        "blocked",
+        "timeout",
+        "failed"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "completeness",
+    "empty_reason",
+    "empty_note",
+    "error_code",
+    "retry_after",
+    "retry_after_seconds",
+    "observed_at",
+    "observed_at_basis"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv1.4.1Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds real context beyond them: hidden-city tickets may violate airline contracts, Viajante does not book so the user must confirm on booking_url, results should be led with hidden_city true rows, and it is a single opt-in run rather than a repeatable search.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then usage then caveats then currency semantics, and every sentence carries information. A few clauses are telegraphic and idioms like 'an optional keep of the card currency' cost the reader a second pass.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers routing, eligibility, contract risk and currency. The remaining gap is silent parameters (top, adults, return_date) that an agent must guess at from names alone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains currency in depth (keep semantics, USD cards, currency_mismatch, no conversion) and implies route/departure, but top, adults and return_date are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Skiplagged search for a named route') and immediately scopes it against the sibling search_flights ('run it once after search_flights'). An agent can distinguish this hidden-city fare source from ordinary flight search without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly gives when-to-use (after search_flights, on a named common route and date, opt-in only) and when-not (named bags, explore, dates, flex, multi-city, unproven destinations), naming several sibling tools as the alternatives. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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