Skip to main content
Glama
jranjan01
by jranjan01

🌐 Travel MCP Server

A reusable Model Context Protocol (MCP) server built with Python and the MCP Python SDK. It exposes travel-related tools that can be dynamically discovered and invoked by AI clients such as Google ADK, Claude Desktop, and other MCP-compatible applications.


✨ Features

  • šŸ”Œ Built using the Model Context Protocol (MCP)

  • šŸ› ļø Exposes reusable travel tools

  • šŸŒ¤ļø Retrieves live weather information

  • šŸ“… Provides the current date

  • šŸ” Automatic tool discovery

  • šŸ¤– Compatible with Google ADK and other MCP clients

  • 🧩 Easily extensible with new travel services


Related MCP server: MCP Server

šŸ—ļø Architecture

AI Client (Google ADK / Claude Desktop)
                │
                ā–¼
           MCP Client
                │
────────────────────────────────
                │
         Travel MCP Server
                │
      ā”Œā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”“ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”€ā”
      ā–¼                   ā–¼
    Tool 1             Tool 2
                │
                ā–¼
        External APIs

šŸ› ļø Available Tools

Tool

Description

šŸŒ¤ļø get_weather(city)

Returns the current weather for the specified city

šŸ“… get_current_date()

Returns today's date in a human-readable format


šŸš€ Running the Server

Install dependencies:

uv sync

Start the MCP server:

uv run python server.py

🧰 Tech Stack

Category

Technologies

Language

Python

Protocol

Model Context Protocol (MCP)

SDK

MCP Python SDK

Weather API

Open-Meteo API

Package Manager

uv


This server is used by the AI Multi-Agent Travel Planner built with Google ADK.

Repository: https://github.com/jranjan01/agentic-travel-planner

Available Tools

2 tools
get_current_date_toolA

Returns today's date in a human-readable format.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose potential behavioral details such as timezone, format, or localization. The description carries the full burden but provides only minimal information.

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?

The description is concise with a single sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded but could perhaps add a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given zero parameters and a simple output, the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks details about the format of the date (e.g., 'May 5, 2025' vs '2025-05-05') and any locale or timezone considerations. An output schema exists, which may clarify the return format, but its content is not shown.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not add anything about parameters, which is expected.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns today's date in a human-readable format. The verb 'returns' and resource 'today's date' are specific. The only sibling is get_weather, so there is no confusion.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or not use the tool. However, the purpose is straightforward, so usage is implied. No alternatives are mentioned, which is acceptable for such a simple tool.

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

get_weatherB

Returns the current weather for a city.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond the fact that it returns weather. Missing information on data freshness, API limits, or side effects.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with no superfluous words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values, but it lacks any mention of limitations or context like real-time vs historical data.

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?

The single parameter 'city' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description adds no details about format, examples, or supported values.

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 tool returns current weather for a city, with a specific verb and resource. The sibling tool is for dates, making the differentiation obvious.

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 vs alternatives. While the sibling is different, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedget_current_date_tool
    • First observedget_weather

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools are completely distinct: one returns the current date, the other returns weather for a city. There is no overlap in their purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

Both tools use the 'get_' prefix, but one includes a redundant '_tool' suffix. Otherwise, naming patterns are consistent (verb_noun).

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server is very thin for a travel domain. Typical travel services would require many more tools (e.g., flights, hotels, destinations).

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for a travel server. Essential operations like searching destinations, booking flights, or getting hotel info are missing.

Maintenance

ActivityStale
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server built with the mcp-framework to provide weather-related tools and data to AI clients. It enables integration of weather capabilities and custom tools into the MCP ecosystem for use with platforms like Claude Desktop.
    23
    -
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An extensible MCP server with weather and time tools for Claude Desktop. It provides current time with automatic timezone detection, weather alerts for US states, and 5-period forecasts for coordinates.
    4
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An MCP server that provides weather and time tools, enabling users to get current time, weather alerts, and forecasts through natural language with Claude Desktop.
    4
    MIT
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    A Python MCP server that provides current weather conditions and multi-day forecasts for cities worldwide using the Open-Meteo API. It exposes tools to get current weather and forecasts without requiring an API key.
    -

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jranjan01/travel-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server