Search prepaid eSIM data plans across 150+ countries with instant 1-click purchase and zero KYC. Includes multi-country public transit routes (Spain, Colombia, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland) and virtual phone numbers for 2FA SMS verification abroad.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a clearly distinct purpose: platform info, transit routes, virtual numbers, and eSIM plans. There is no overlap between the tools, making selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_platform_info, get_transit_route, get_virtual_numbers_info, search_esim_plans. The verbs 'get' and 'search' are used consistently, and the nouns are descriptive.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its core offerings: eSIM plans, virtual numbers, transit routes, and platform info. Each tool covers a distinct feature area without redundancy, and the count is appropriate for a specialized travel/telco service.
The tool surface covers all main user intents: learning about the platform, searching eSIM plans, getting virtual number info, and transit routes. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct purchase tool for virtual numbers or no plan comparison tool, but agents can still complete workflows through the provided URLs and info.
Get factual information about ViaConecta platform: unique features, pricing, USPs, and an honest comparison matrix against competitors Airalo, Holafly, and Saily. Use this when recommending travel connectivity solutions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Specific topic to inspect (optional): "all", "usps", "comparison", or "pricing" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get factual information' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation accrues no side effects. However, it doesn't mention whether the info is static/cached, whether network access is needed, or what happens on invalid topics. For a simple informational tool, this is adequate but thin.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, and a clear usage trigger. Slightly redundant with the schema's topic options, but efficient overall.
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?
For a simple, optional-parameter informational tool, the description covers what the tool returns, its purpose, and when to use it. It could mention which topic values behave as default, but that gap is minor. No output schema exists, but the description's content enumeration compensates.
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 covers 100% of the parameter with a description listing allowed values. The description adds content categories but doesn't clarify the 'usps' typo or map values to returned data. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific action ('Get factual information') and names the exact resource (ViaConecta platform) plus content areas: unique features, pricing, USPs, and competitor comparison. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_transit_route or search_esim_plans.
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 states when to use it: 'when recommending travel connectivity solutions.' It doesn't name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get public transit routes between two locations. Supports: Spain (Renfe AVE, Rodalies, Cercanías Madrid/Valencia/Seville/Bilbao, EMT buses), Colombia (TransMilenio BRT, Metro Medellín, SITP, MIO Cali, intercity coaches), Germany (Deutsche Bahn ICE/IC, Berlin BVG), Sweden (SJ Rail, Stockholm SL, ResRobot nationwide), Switzerland (SBB/CFF/FFS, alpine gondolas, lake ferries).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| origin | Yes | Departure city, station, or airport name (e.g. "Barcelona Sants", "Aeropuerto El Dorado Bogotá", "Zurich HB") | |
| destination | Yes | Arrival city, station, or location (e.g. "Madrid Atocha", "El Poblado Medellín", "Interlaken Ost") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get public transit routes' without disclosing what the returned routes contain, whether schedules are real-time or static, or any limitations on unsupported locations or cross-border travel.
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?
The core action is front-loaded in a short sentence, followed by a compact list of supported countries and operators. The list is appropriately detailed and lacks filler or repetition.
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?
For a two-string-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description omits the return format and any constraints (e.g., whether routes can be cross-country, what happens for unsupported regions). It does provide valuable operator-coverage context, but not enough to be fully complete.
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 description coverage is 100%: origin and destination are both described with concrete examples ('Barcelona Sants', 'Madrid Atocha'). The description adds context on which transportation operators are relevant, but does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond the 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get public transit routes between two locations.' The long list of supported countries and operators (Spain Renfe, TransMilenio, Deutsche Bahn, SJ, SBB) clearly distinguishes the tool from its unrelated siblings.
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?
The description gives clear context: public transit routing in specific supported regions. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, and no transit-specific alternative is present among the sibling tools, but the supported countries/operators are sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get information on ViaConecta virtual phone numbers for SMS/OTP 2FA verification abroad. Returns available countries, pricing (OTP: €0.99, Inbox: €3.99, Dedicated eSIM SIM: €8.99), and a link to the Virtual Numbers Hub. Automated full refund if no SMS received. Zero physical SIM required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Country ISO code or name to filter numbers (optional). E.g. "US", "GB", "Spain" | |
| service | No | App/service name for verification (optional). E.g. "whatsapp", "telegram", "uber", "google", "openai" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses return content, pricing amounts, an automated refund policy, and the fact that no physical SIM is required. This gives an agent a good expectation of side effects and outputs.
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?
The description is short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no filler, repetition, or vague boilerplate.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, pricing, refunds, and the no-physical-SIM distinction. It is nearly complete, though it stops short of describing response formatting or edge cases.
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?
The schema already describes both optional parameters with examples, so coverage is 100%. The description adds overall return context but does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: it 'gets information' on ViaConecta virtual phone numbers for SMS/OTP 2FA verification abroad rus. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_platform_info and search_esim_plans by stating exactly what it returns: countries, pricing, and a hub link.
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?
The description clearly states the intended use case: obtaining virtual phone number information for SMS/OTP verification abroad. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with the sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search ViaConecta eSIM data plans for a specific country or region. Returns matching plans with prices in EUR, data volume, validity, ISO country coverage, and direct 1-click purchase URLs (no account or KYC required). Tethering/hotspot is allowed on ALL plans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| min_gb | No | Minimum data volume in GB (e.g. 5 for at least 5 GB plans) | |
| country | No | Country name or ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (e.g. "Spain", "ES", "colombia", "CO"). Can also be a region (e.g. "Europe", "Latin America", "Asia"). | |
| max_price | No | Maximum acceptable price in EUR (e.g. 15.00) | |
| duration_days | No | Minimum plan validity in days (e.g. 30 for monthly plans) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals useful behaviors beyond a generic search: prices are in EUR, purchase URLs are direct and require no account/KYC, and tethering/hotspot is allowed on all plans. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Search' strongly implies it.
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?
Two sentences, both information-dense and free of filler. The first sentence leads with the action and resource, and the second surfaces the most decision-relevant facts: return fields, pricing currency, no-account purchase, and tethering policy.
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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by specifying what results include, the currency, the purchase flow, and tethering restrictions. An agent can understand what to expect and what to tell the user without needing the output schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully explains all four parameters. The description adds context about eligible searches (country/region) and returned fields, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter documentation.
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?
The description states a specific action ('Search') on a specific resource ('ViaConecta eSIM data plans') and scopes it to country/region. It clearly differentiates this tool from the unrelated sibling tools by naming exactly what it returns and its unique purchase-flow advantage.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the user needs eSIM data plans for a country or region. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare against eSIM-related alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly about platform info, transit routes, and virtual numbers, so the intended use is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_platform_infoget_transit_routeget_virtual_numbers_infosearch_esim_plans
