tee-times
Server Details
Live golf tee time availability across US courses. Search by location, date, players, and price.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: search_tee_times for finding courses near a location, and get_course_tee_times for detailed information on a specific course. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (search_tee_times, get_course_tee_times), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but appropriately scoped for its purpose—searching and retrieving golf tee time information. The count is reasonable for a focused search-only interface, though additional tools for booking or filtering might be expected in a fuller implementation.
The tool surface covers the core workflow: first search for courses, then get detailed tee times for a specific course. The descriptions indicate that booking is handled via external URLs, so the server's scope of providing search and information is fully covered without dead ends.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_course_tee_timesGet tee times at a specific courseARead-onlyInspect
List every bookable tee time at one golf course for a date, plus a book_url (the LoopGolf booking page for the course and date) and an availability-by-date summary for the course's whole booking window. Requires the course_slug returned by search_tee_times. Use when the golfer has picked a course or asks about a specific one. Times are course local; prices per player in USD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to the first date with availability. | |
| holes | No | ||
| players | No | Group size (1-4). Default 2. | |
| max_price | No | Maximum price per player in USD. | |
| course_slug | Yes | Course slug from search_tee_times results (course_slug field). | |
| max_results | No | Max tee times to return (1-80). Default 40. | |
| time_of_day | No | Course-local time window: morning (before noon), midday (noon-4pm), twilight (after 4pm). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description need not restate. Description adds useful context: 'Times are course local; prices per player in USD.' This goes beyond basic safety profile. No destructive behavior mentioned, consistent with annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the main purpose and output. Every sentence adds value, including usage hint and data context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 params and no output schema, description covers key outputs (tee times, book_url, availability summary) and prerequisites. Minor gap: default date behavior not stated, but schema handles it. Otherwise sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 86%; the description does not add meaning for the undocumented 'holes' parameter. For other params, schema already provides good descriptions (e.g., time_of_day details). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'bookable tee time at one golf course for a date', plus additional outputs (book_url, availability summary). It distinguishes from sibling search_tee_times by requiring its course_slug.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use when the golfer has picked a course or asks about a specific one.' and specifies prerequisite: requires course_slug from search_tee_times. No ambiguity on when to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_tee_timesSearch golf tee timesARead-onlyInspect
Search live, bookable golf tee times at courses near a US location. Returns courses ranked by distance, price, or soonest time, each with availability counts, lowest price, sample tee times, a book_url (the LoopGolf booking page for that course and date), and a course_slug for get_course_tee_times. Use this first for any 'find me a tee time near X' request. All times are course local time; prices are per player in USD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date to play, YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for any upcoming date. | |
| sort | No | Result order. Defaults to soonest when a date is given, else distance. | |
| holes | No | Round length. | |
| players | No | Group size (1-4). Default 2. | |
| location | Yes | US city and state (e.g. "Palo Alto, CA") or 5-digit zip code. | |
| max_price | No | Maximum price per player in USD. | |
| max_results | No | Number of courses to return (1-20). Default 10. | |
| time_of_day | No | Course-local time window: morning (before noon), midday (noon-4pm), twilight (after 4pm). | |
| radius_miles | No | Search radius in miles (5-100). Default 40. | |
| hot_deals_only | No | Only discounted hot-deal tee times. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true so agent knows it's safe. Description adds return structure (rankings, availability, prices, book_url, course_slug) and clarifies times are local and prices in USD, which are valuable behavioral details beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: purpose, return fields with usage hint, and usage directive with time/price clarifications. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main use case and return structure adequately. Missing minor details like explanation of 'sample tee times' or error conditions, but metadata makes it clear. Sufficient for a search tool with 10 parameters and a sibling tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it mostly restates what parameters return (e.g., sort order) but doesn't add new constraints or formatting tips.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Search live, bookable golf tee times at courses near a US location' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_course_tee_times' by mentioning it returns a course_slug for that tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this first for any find me a tee time near X request.' Provides context for when to use it, though does not explicitly state when not to use it; however, the mention of course_slug implies the alternative tool for a specific course.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!