Travel Server MCP

by jidehen

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

get_flights

Search for available flights between two airports. Returns flight offers and detailed debug logs.

Instructions

MCP tool for searching available flights between two locations. Returns both results and debug logs.

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>",
      "departure_date": "<departure_date>"
    },
    "name": "get_flights"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`origin`	Yes
`destination`	Yes
`departure_date`	Yes
`return_date`	No
`passengers`	No
`cabin_class`	No	economy

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returning results and debug logs, which is useful, but fails to disclose if the operation is read-only, any side effects, or rate limits. The agent cannot infer safety or constraints.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise at two sentences, but it under-specifies critical information. While front-loaded, the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details, making it merely adequate rather than effective.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return value structure beyond 'results and debug logs', and fails to cover data formats, constraints, or edge cases. The tool needs significantly more context to be usable.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (origin, destination, date, passengers, cabin class). The agent gets no guidance on how to fill in these fields, such as date format, allowed values, or passenger limits.

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 clearly states it searches available flights between two locations, with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions returning results and debug logs, adding context. However, it lacks differentiation from potential sibling tools, though none are provided.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. The description only states the basic function without context about appropriate use cases.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

get_flightsC