flight-finder

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of flight finding: positioning flights, seat maps, trip planning, award search, and cash search (one-way and round trip). No overlaps.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., find_positioning_flights, get_seat_map, search_awards).
Tool Count5/5
Six tools cover the core functionality of a flight finder without excess. The scope is well-scoped and manageable.
Completeness4/5
The set covers major flight search types (award, cash) and trip planning, but lacks tools for flight status, booking management, or filtering by amenities. Minor gaps exist.
Average 2.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention API authentication, rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or any side effects. The single sentence is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but under-specified. Valuable space is used for a vague statement, missing critical details. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It does not mention output or behavior, leaving the agent blind.
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%, yet the description adds zero parameter meaning. Parameters like origin_airports, cabin, sources are not explained. The description compensates nothing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Award search via seats.aero Pro API', which identifies the verb and resource but is vague. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_cash_one_way or search_cash_round_trip, leaving the agent unclear about when to use this specifically.
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 guidelines on when to use vs alternatives. Sibling tools exist for cash searches and positioning flights, but the description offers no context for selection.
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 carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, caching, or whether the search is real-time. Output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It does not earn its place because it fails to provide critical details about parameters or usage, making it insufficiently informative for the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters (4 required) and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks context on required inputs, optional parameters, or any edge cases. Output schema exists but is not referenced.
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%, yet the tool description mentions no parameter details (e.g., required fields origin, destination, dates). The agent gets no help understanding parameter meaning or format beyond the schema structure.
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 is a cash-fare round-trip search using Google Flights (fli), and the name distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_awards and search_cash_one_way. However, 'Cash-fare' could be misinterpreted, and the description adds little beyond the name.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for paid flights rather than awards, or that it differs from one-way searches. Context from sibling names implies this, but the description lacks direct usage advice.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose whether tool modifies state, requires authentication, or produces output. Only mentions input file.
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?
Single sentence is appropriately brief and front-loaded. No unnecessary words, though could benefit from more detail.
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?
Missing crucial details: what the planner does, required YAML structure, side effects, return values. Minimal for a tool with no output schema.
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%, but the description links 'trip_yaml_path' to a YAML file pattern. Adds basic meaning but lacks format, constraints, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it runs a full trip planner on a YAML file, but the verb 'run' is vague and doesn't specify what the planner does. It distinguishes from sibling search tools only implicitly.
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. Siblings are specific search tools, but no explicit when/when-not advice.
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 present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions 'via fli (Google Flights)' which hints at the data source but omits details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if parameters are invalid.
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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover key missing aspects without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain how to effectively use parameters like cabin, stops, hour windows, or top_n. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but guidance on input is lacking.
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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. Parameter names like 'origin' and 'destination' are self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify format, constraints (e.g., airport codes vs city names), or how 'depart_hour_window' works.
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's a 'cash-fare one-way search via fli (Google Flights)', specifying the verb (search), resource (cash-fare one-way), and data source. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_cash_round_trip' which is for round trips.
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. The description does not indicate scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Sibling tool names imply alternatives but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool finds flights and mentions a post-verification step, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether results are cached. It is adequate but could add more transparency.
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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: state the function, explain the use case, and provide a cautionary note. It is front-loaded and wastes no 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?
With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, how to interpret results, or the meaning of parameters like `earliest_days_before` or `cabin`. An AI agent would need additional information to use this tool correctly.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions `from_city`, `return_hub`, and `return_date` by name without explaining their formats or constraints. Parameters like `earliest_days_before`, `cabin`, `adults`, and `children` are left entirely to the schema, which is insufficient. The description should compensate by explaining these parameters.
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 it finds positioning flights from `from_city` to `return_hub` near `return_date`. It explains the context (asymmetric-return trick) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `search_awards` or `search_cash_one_way` by focusing on positioning flights for a specific travel pattern.
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 explains when to use this tool (for the asymmetric-return trick) and provides a critical guideline: candidates must be verified as refundable on the airline site before booking. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to understand its appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure and that it's a read-only lookup, but doesn't mention errors, auth, or rate limits. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
Description is well-structured with purpose first, then usage, then return details. Slightly long but every sentence adds value; no wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description covers input, output structure, and usage patterns well. Missing edge cases like conflict between slug and carrier/aircraft, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with examples and expected formats (IATA codes, displayed names, slug pattern). Adds significant value beyond schema types.
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 it retrieves cabin product and seat map URL for a specific aircraft, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about flight search and trip planning.
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?
Describes two parameter combinations (slug or carrier+aircraft) and when to use each, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use or mention alternative tools. Still clear enough for correct invocation.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![flight-finder MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nstevens/flight-finder/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nstevens/flight-finder)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![flight-finder MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nstevens/flight-finder/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/nstevens/flight-finder)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/nstevens/flight-finder'

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