Onward Flights
REMOTE · ONWARD.FLIGHTS
Search real flights and buy an onward ticket (proof of onward travel), paid in USDC over MPP
Available components
Last scanned (12 hours ago)
Scores higher than 85% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 6 Nov 2026.
Category Finance and Payments
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security83
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC is configured correctly; the domain's records validate against the full chain to the root. View diagnostics → Pass
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability69
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 600 tokens (~200/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management57
- Stability observed for 17 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Checks we ran (13)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 6 Nov 26 +1
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 4 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 47 to 50. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 14 days of observed history at the previous scan, 15 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 2 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 40 to 43. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 12 days of observed history at the previous scan, 13 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 33 to 37. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 10 days of observed history at the previous scan, 11 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 27 to 30. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 8 days of observed history at the previous scan, 9 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 20 to 23. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 6 days of observed history at the previous scan, 7 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 13 to 17. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 4 days of observed history at the previous scan, 5 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 6 Nov 2026 · Probed https://onward.flights/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=onward.flights | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 30 Oct 2026 | 28 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | e4095d42b477505a13e535a7770c38ac |
| SANs: onward.flights, *.onward.flights | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC secure
Validation of onward.flights. — Secure
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| flights. | DS published | 64106 | 8 | Verified |
| onward.flights. | DS published | 2371 | 13 | Verified |
| onward.flights. | Verified address RRset verified with the apex keys |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=0; includeSubDomains; preload |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://onward.flights/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://onward.flights/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://onward.flights/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
buy_ticket Buy onward ticket ~211
Buy the ticket for a flight from search_flights, paid in USDC. Call it first without payment to get the price, wallet address and MPP challenges. After sending the USDC, call it again with tx_hash and chain (or an MPP credential in _meta "org.paymentauth/credential"). x402 clients can instead sign one of the offers in error.data.x402 and retry with the PaymentPayload in _meta "x402/payment", with no gas needed. Returns the ticket link and PDF.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | string | – | Chain the USDC was sent on, defaults to base |
| string | – | Optional, also emails the ticket here | |
| first_name | string | yes | Passenger's first name, as on their passport |
| last_name | string | yes | Passenger's last name, as on their passport |
| ticket_id | string | yes | The flight id from search_flights |
| tx_hash | string | – | Hash of the USDC transfer that paid for it |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
find_airports Find airports ~47
Look up 3 letter IATA airport codes by city, airport or country name.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | string | yes | City, airport, country or code, e.g. "Bangkok" |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
search_flights Search onward flights ~114
Find one-way flights to use as an onward ticket. Returns up to 10 flights, each with an id to buy and its price in USD.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | string | – | Departure date, YYYY-MM-DD, within 9 months. Defaults to 14 days from now. |
| destination | string | yes | IATA code of where the onward flight goes, e.g. "SIN" |
| origin | string | yes | IATA code of the airport leaving the country the traveller is entering, e.g. "BKK" |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Onward Flights MCP server?
Onward Flights is a hosted endpoint at https://onward.flights/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · onward.flights
claude mcp add --transport http flights-onward-onward-flights 'https://onward.flights/mcp'
What is the Onward Flights MCP server?
Onward Flights is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as flights.onward/onward-flights. Search real flights and buy an onward ticket (proof of onward travel), paid in USDC over MPP. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://onward.flights/mcp).
Is the Onward Flights MCP server safe to use?
Onward Flights scores 82 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Onward Flights MCP server expose?
Onward Flights exposes 3 tools: find_airports, search_flights, buy_ticket. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 372 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Onward Flights MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Onward Flights without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Onward Flights MCP server still maintained?
Onward Flights is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 6 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What did VerifyMCP test on the Onward Flights MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on Onward Flights, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HTTPS, HSTS header and 9 more. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.