Skip to main content
Glama
matheusgalvao1

Travel Planner MCP Server

by matheusgalvao1
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct domain (flights vs. hotels) with no overlap, making it clear which to use for each purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_flights, search_hotels), providing predictability and clarity.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'Travel Planner'—search alone is insufficient for planning beyond information retrieval.

    Completeness2/5

    The server only offers search functionality, lacking critical operations like booking, itinerary management, or destination recommendations, which are essential for a full travel planner.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations exist, so description must carry full burden. Mentions real options and source, but omits behavioral details like rate limits, data freshness, or that results are from a third-party API. Insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    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?

    Two sentences, each with clear purpose: first states what the tool does and its source, second provides usage constraint. No wasted words, front-loaded with critical info.

    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?

    Tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Description lists available data types but does not cover output format, pagination, default sorting, or error handling. For a complex search tool, this is incomplete.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema coverage is 50%, but description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'hotel inventory, prices, ratings'. It does not elaborate on how parameters like budget, constraints, or result_limit affect the search. The description's value for parameters is minimal.

    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?

    Specific verb 'search' with resource 'real hotel/accommodation options from Google Hotels via SerpApi'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'search_flights'.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    Explicitly instructs to use for hotel inventory and to only recommend results from this tool, providing clear usage context. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but sibling tool implies domain separation.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does but omits details on rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or error handling. The result_limit parameter exists but is not mentioned in terms of behavior.

    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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and a critical usage constraint. No superfluous words.

    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?

    For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It lists types of returned info but does not describe output structure, pagination, error handling, or how constraints affect results, leaving the agent with uncertainties.

    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 55% (moderate). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given coverage and lack of additional param info.

    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 uses a specific verb ('Search real flight options') and explicitly lists the types of information returned (flight inventory, prices, carriers, durations, stops, booking links). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_hotels'.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description provides a clear usage context (searching real flights) and includes an important constraint ('Only recommend flights returned by this tool; do not invent flights'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives beyond the obvious sibling differentiation.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

travel-planner-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

travel-planner-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/matheusgalvao1/travel-planner-mcp-server'

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