Skip to main content
Glama
shayben

All Flights MCP

by shayben
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing providers, searching flights across providers, and searching across date ranges. No overlaps or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: list_providers, search_flights, search_date_range. No deviations.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is well-scoped for a flight search server, covering configuration listing, general search, and date-range search without excess or deficiency.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers core flight search functionality, but lacks filters (e.g., by airline, price) or provider-specific queries. Minor gap but sufficient for the stated purpose.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 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 passing

  • 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?

    Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits, pagination, or what 'normalized offer' means.

    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 front-loaded with verb 'Search', very concise. However, it could include more structure for clarity.

    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 13 parameters and no output schema, yet description lacks details on return value format, how results are normalized, or any usage caveats. Incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

    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 low (31%), and description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'outbound dates and stay lengths'. No mapping to specific parameters or added meaning for the 13 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?

    Description clearly states it searches multiple outbound dates and stay lengths, returning cheapest normalized offer per date pair. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_flights which likely searches specific dates.

    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?

    Description implies usage for flexible date searches but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

    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?

    The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing concurrent querying of providers, normalization, and deduplication. Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior, and the description complements this without contradiction. However, it still omits details like error handling or rate limits.

    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 a single sentence that effectively summarizes the core function. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be broken into multiple sentences for improved readability, but overall it is appropriately sized.

    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 (11 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, how to interpret results, or what edge cases exist. The annotations and schema alone do not provide complete guidance for a production tool.

    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?

    With schema coverage at 55%, many parameters lack description. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what is already in the schema. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving ambiguity for parameters like 'providers' or 'timeoutMs'.

    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 specifies the verb 'Search', the resource 'flights', and the unique behavior: searching all configured providers concurrently, normalizing offers, and deduplicating. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_providers' and 'search_date_range' which have different scopes.

    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 vs. alternatives is provided. The description only states what the tool does, but does not mention when to prefer it over 'search_date_range' or other tools. The context of usage is implied but not articulated.

    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?

    The description and annotations are consistent: readOnlyHint true aligns with a listing operation. The description adds the detail that the tool returns configuration status, which is transparent. No contradictory or missed behaviors.

    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 concise sentence of 9 words, front-loading the purpose and requiring no additional sentences. Every word provides value.

    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 the tool's low complexity, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description adequately captures the purpose. It states the output includes provider names and configuration status, which is sufficient for a simple list. A minor gap is the lack of return format details, but the tool is straightforward.

    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?

    With no parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter info. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the tool's parameterless nature is fully captured.

    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 lists flight inventory providers and their configuration status, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_flights and search_date_range, which are focused on searching rather than listing.

    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 alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for selecting it appropriately.

    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

all-flights-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

all-flights-mcp 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/shayben/all-flights-mcp'

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