Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Flights Policy Recommender (MCP)

Google Flights Policy Recommender (MCP)

by tarun101
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Check a flight against a travel policy

check_policy

Checks a selected flight against your travel policy to determine compliance, flag violations, and identify if approval is required.

Instructions

Evaluates a specific flight (by id from the last search_flights call) against a policy JSON file and returns compliance, violations, and whether it needs approval.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "flightId": "<flightId>"
    },
    "name": "check_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flightIdYesA flight id returned by search_flights
policyPathNoPath to the policy JSON file./policy.json

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It states what the tool returns but does not specify side effects (likely none), permissions, or rate limits. It adds some behavioral context beyond schema but could be more explicit about non-modification.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key purpose and outputs. No redundancy or unnecessary 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 adequately lists the main return values (compliance, violations, approval). It does not detail error conditions or return format, but it covers the essential outputs for an intermediate-complexity tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by clarifying that flightId must come from the last search_flights call. The default policyPath is also noted in the schema, but the description reinforces it.

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 evaluates a specific flight from search_flights against a policy, returning compliance/violations/approval status. It distinguishes itself from find_compliant_flights and other siblings by focusing on a single flight vs. policy compliance.

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 explicitly ties the flight ID to the last search_flights call, giving clear context for when to use. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the prerequisite is clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools