Skip to main content
Glama
nxGnosis

Travel Agent MCP Server

by nxGnosis
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

42%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    The two tools have unclear boundaries and significant overlap. 'Immigration information' and 'visa information' are closely related concepts in travel, and their descriptions do not clearly differentiate what each tool provides, leading to potential confusion for an agent trying to select the right one.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The tool names follow a consistent pattern of uppercase snake_case with a clear 'GET_<domain>_BY_COUNTRY' structure. Both tools use the same verb ('GET') and format, making them predictable and easy to parse.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'Travel Agent' domain, which typically involves broader functionality like booking flights, hotels, or checking travel advisories. The limited scope suggests an incomplete or overly narrow implementation.

    Completeness2/5

    The server is severely incomplete for a travel agent purpose. It lacks core travel operations such as searching for flights, booking accommodations, checking weather, or providing general travel tips, leaving obvious gaps that will hinder agent workflows.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error handling. This is a significant gap 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?

    The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

    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 of immigration information, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not address what type of information is returned, potential limitations, or how it differs from the sibling tool, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

    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 does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'specific country' but does not explain the 'countryCode' parameter's format, valid values, or semantics, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

    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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'immigration information for a specific country', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool GET_VISA_INFO_BY_COUNTRY, which likely provides overlapping or related information, so it misses the highest score.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling GET_VISA_INFO_BY_COUNTRY, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternative contexts. It lacks explicit usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action without details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. It doesn't add meaningful context beyond the minimal purpose, failing to compensate for the lack of structured annotations.

    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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and structure.

    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 tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output expectations, making it incomplete for effective agent operation despite the concise structure.

    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 doesn't mention any parameters or their meanings. It fails to explain what 'countryCode' and 'currencyCode' represent, their expected formats, or how they influence the output, leaving both parameters undocumented and adding no value beyond the bare schema.

    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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('visa information for a specific country'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'GET_IMMIGRATION_INFO_BY_COUNTRY', which likely covers related but distinct information, preventing a perfect score.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'GET_IMMIGRATION_INFO_BY_COUNTRY', nor does it mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

    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

TravelAgentMCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

TravelAgentMCP 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/nxGnosis/TravelAgentMCP'

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