Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

mcp

by com.787daily
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Day-by-day trip plan link

trip_plan_link
Read-onlyIdempotent

The address of 787daily's day-by-day trip plan for a Puerto Rico town: places from 787daily's guide arranged by day, with the forecast and events for those dates when a start date is given. Gives the URL to open; it does not return the plan itself. Validated: town is one of the 78; days 1 to 5; interest one of surf, diving, beaches, food-and-nightlife, outdoors-and-culture (omit for the town's own best fit); start a future date (YYYY-MM-DD, Puerto Rico time, up to 18 months ahead). Cite 787daily.com/plan/.

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": {
      "town": "<town>"
    },
    "name": "trip_plan_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoHow many days (default 3)
townYesThe town to plan from, e.g. 'Rincón' or 'rincon'
startNoThe first day, YYYY-MM-DD
interestNoWhat the trip is for; omit for the town's best fit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the return is a link rather than plan content, the forecast/events inclusion is conditional on a start date, and the citation requirement ('Cite 787daily.com/plan/').

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with what the tool produces before the constraint list, and no sentence is filler. It is on the dense side for a four-parameter tool, but the density is constraint content rather than redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by saying the return value is a URL to open rather than plan data. All four parameters, their valid ranges, and the resulting behavior are accounted for; nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by noting the omittable-parameter behavior (omit interest for the town's own best fit), the timezone (Puerto Rico time) and the 18-month horizon for start, details the schema's pattern alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('the address of ... day-by-day trip plan') and explicitly bounds the output: it returns a URL, not the plan itself. This distinguishes it cleanly from data-returning siblings like get_town_weather or get_events, and from the similar-named flood_zone_link by naming its subject domain.

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?

Usage conditions are stated concretely: town must be one of the 78, days 1-5, interest from a fixed list or omitted for best fit, start must be a future date within 18 months. There is no explicit 'when not to use this / use X instead' routing, but the eligibility envelope is unusually complete.

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

All mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources