nomadpoint

update_flight

Idempotent

Change a flight's route, times, seat, confirmation or notes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seat`	No
`notes`	No
`price`	No
`currency`	No
`flight_id`	Yes
`booking_url`	No
`cabin_class`	No
`airline_code`	No	IATA airline code, e.g. 'TP' — find it with search_airlines
`airline_name`	No
`flight_number`	No
`arrival_datetime`	No	ISO-8601 datetime, e.g. 2026-08-01T14:30:00Z
`arrival_terminal`	No
`is_onward_ticket`	No	Mark it as the proof-of-onward-travel ticket for an entry requirement
`confirmation_code`	No
`departure_datetime`	No	ISO-8601 datetime, e.g. 2026-08-01T14:30:00Z
`departure_terminal`	No
`arrival_airport_code`	No	IATA code, e.g. 'NRT' — find it with search_airports
`departure_airport_code`	No	IATA code, e.g. 'JFK' — find it with search_airports

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., side effects, validation, or failure conditions).

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, succinct sentence with no redundant information or unnecessary details.

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?

The tool has many parameters and sibling operations, but the description does not mention what it returns, how it interacts with search tools, or any side effects. Given no output schema, more context is needed for complete understanding.

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 input schema has 18 parameters with only 33% descriptions. The description loosely maps some fields (route, times, seat, confirmation, notes) to parameters but does not cover all (e.g., price, currency, airline_code). It provides minimal compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 the action ('Change') and the resource ('a flight'), listing specific attributes (route, times, seat, confirmation, notes). It is distinct from create_flight and delete_flight.

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 existing flights or require flight_id as a prerequisite, nor does it contrast with create/delete operations.

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

All nomadpoint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., create_flight vs create_activity vs create_stay), and descriptions clarify overlaps like stay vs accommodation. The only potential confusion (create_activity covers travel legs) is explicitly explained, so misselection is unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using standard verbs: create, delete, get, list, search, set, update, add, remove, leave. Nouns are consistently singular and descriptive (passport, journey, stay, flight, accommodation). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count4/5

With 36 tools, the count is higher than typical, but the server covers a wide domain: journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas, documents, preferences, and sharing. Each entity has CRUD operations plus search and status, so the count is justified, though bordering on heavy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD for every entity (journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas), user profile access (get_me), search utilities, sharing controls (join links, member management), and preferences. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps; even edge cases like deleting bookings before stays are handled.

Resources

Need Help?