places
Server Details
70,520 places worth a detour: name search, nearby lookup, fame rankings, statistics. No key, CC0.
- 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 8 of 8 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_place for a single record, search_places for name search, top_places for famous lists, random_place for discovery, places_near for proximity, list_countries and list_kinds for aggregates, get_statistics for live stats. No overlap.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_place, list_countries, search_places, top_places). However, places_near uses noun_preposition, and random_place uses adjective_noun, which are minor deviations but still clear.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a places atlas. It covers core queries (single record, search, top, random, nearby) and aggregate views (countries, kinds, statistics) without being overwhelming.
The set covers querying and discovery well, but lacks write operations (create/update/delete places). For a read-only public atlas this is acceptable, but if management were needed, there are gaps.
Available Tools
8 toolsget_placeGet one place in fullAInspect
Fetch one place’s full record by slug (preferred, e.g. "neuschwanstein-castle") or exact name: coordinates, founding year, worldwide fame rank and tier, short description, photo URL, Wikipedia and Wikidata links, and a deep link that opens it on the map. Unsure of the slug? Call search_places first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place | Yes | Slug (preferred, e.g. "colosseum") or exact name |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lists all returned fields but does not specify behavior on missing place (e.g., null or error). Adequate for a simple fetch but could be more transparent about edge cases.
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?
One efficient sentence listing fields, with a brief usage hint. No wasted words; front-loaded with key action.
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?
No output schema, but description explicitly enumerates all fields returned (coordinates, founding year, rank, description, etc.), making the response fully predictable.
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 describes the parameter as 'Slug (preferred) or exact name'; description reinforces this with examples and preference. Adds value beyond schema by clarifying which identifier is preferred.
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 'Fetch one place’s full record by slug... or exact name' and lists all returned fields. Distinguishes from sibling search_places by instructing to use it if slug is unknown.
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 when to use (get full record) and when not to (unsure of slug: call search_places first). Sibling differentiation is precise.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_statisticsAtlas statisticsAInspect
Headline statistics computed live from the atlas: totals by kind, top countries, fame-tier sizes, dated-entry stats, geographic extremes and the most famous place. The source for aggregate claims like "how many castles are on Detourmap" or "which country has the most notable places".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes statistics are 'computed live', implying real-time aggregation, but does not disclose any potential performance impact, rate limits, or required permissions. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but provides no additional behavioral details beyond the live computation.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the key types of statistics, and provides concrete examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and typical use cases. It could further detail the return format or structure, but the examples compensate adequately.
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?
Although the input schema is empty (100% coverage), the description adds substantial meaning by enumerating the kinds of statistics returned (totals, top countries, dated-entry stats, etc.), which helps the agent understand the output scope.
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 clearly states the tool computes 'headline statistics' from the atlas and lists specific categories like totals, top countries, fame-tier sizes, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_place, top_places) by focusing on aggregate metrics.
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 explicitly says it is the source for aggregate claims like 'how many castles' or 'which country has the most notable places', giving clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_countriesCountries with place countsAInspect
Every country in the atlas with its place count, most first — answers "which country has the most notable places". Countries with eight or more places include a browsable index page URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sort order (most first) and that countries with 8+ places include a URL. However, it doesn't mention if the data is live or cached, or if there are any limitations (e.g., only listed countries with places). The description is adequate but could be more transparent about data freshness or scope.
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 with the main purpose. Every word adds value. No redundant or vague phrasing.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavior: list of countries with place counts, sorted, and mention of index URL for high-count countries. It feels complete for a simple listing tool, though one could argue for a note about whether all countries are included or just those with places.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Description adds no parameter information because none is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('countries with place counts'), and specifically answers a common question: 'which country has the most notable places'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_place or get_statistics by focusing on a country-level aggregation with counts and sort order.
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 implies the tool is for finding country place counts and ranking. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the sibling tools cover other scenarios (e.g., get_place for a single place, search_places for queries). The context is clear enough for an AI to select appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_kindsThe seven kinds of placeAInspect
Detourmap’s seven kinds (layers) with worldwide counts and browsable index pages — ruins & the uncanny, sacred sites, built landmarks, nature & landscapes, parks & cemeteries, museums & culture, and fun & leisure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns worldwide counts and browsable index pages, which is sufficient for a read-only listing tool with no parameters. No hidden destructive behavior is apparent.
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 a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and then enumerates the kinds. It is efficient, though the list could be slightly more compact but remains clear.
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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return content (counts and browseable pages) and enumerates the seven kinds. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what data it provides.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (counts and index pages) and listing the seven kinds, which is beyond the empty 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists Detourmap's seven kinds (layers) with worldwide counts and browsable index pages, and enumerates all seven categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_place or search_places, which focus on individual places or searches.
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 implies usage for browsing the main categories of places but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_places or top_places. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
places_nearFind places worth a detour near a pointAInspect
List notable places within a radius of a WGS84 coordinate, most famous first (rank order), each with distance_km — the direct answer to "what is worth visiting near ?". Radius defaults to 50 km (max 500). Geocode the location yourself, then call this with its latitude/longitude. Filter by kind to answer e.g. "waterfalls near Zurich".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Kind of place — key or slug: ruins (Ruins & the uncanny), sacred (Sacred sites), landmark (Built landmarks), natural (Nature & landscapes), parks (Parks & cemeteries), museum (Museums & culture), fun (Fun & leisure) (optional) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 15) | |
| latitude | Yes | ||
| longitude | Yes | ||
| radius_km | No | Search radius in km (default 50) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ranking order, distance_km output, radius defaults and max. It could mention pagination (truncation via limit) but does so implicitly. No contradictions.
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 two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.
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 5-param tool with no output schema, the description covers input context, default behavior, and an example. It lacks error handling details but is reasonably complete for a list 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 description coverage is 60%, baseline 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the tool's purpose and usage context (e.g., 'Geocode the location yourself'), but per-parameter detail is mostly in schema. The extra context justifies a 4.
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 clearly states the tool lists notable places within a radius of a WGS84 coordinate, provides ranking by fame and includes distance. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_place' (single place) and 'search_places' (general search) by focusing on nearby notable places in rank order.
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 explicit guidance to geocode the location first, provides an example filter by kind ('waterfalls near Zurich'), and explains defaults. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to all siblings, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
random_placeA random place worth a detourAInspect
One random place with its full record — deliberately biased toward the little-known long tail, like the site’s own "Surprise me" button. Optionally limit by country and/or kind. Great for discovery and "place of the day" features.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Kind of place — key or slug: ruins (Ruins & the uncanny), sacred (Sacred sites), landmark (Built landmarks), natural (Nature & landscapes), parks (Parks & cemeteries), museum (Museums & culture), fun (Fun & leisure) (optional) | |
| country | No | Country name or ISO code (optional) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the bias toward obscure places and random selection. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or that it may return duplicates. Some behavioral traits are implied but not fully detailed.
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 two sentences: first explains the core purpose and bias, second covers optional filters and use case. No redundant or irrelevant information. Front-loaded with the key action.
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 the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose, optional filters, and an example use case. It does not explain the output structure, but without an output schema, this is a minor gap.
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% (both parameters documented in the schema). The description only restates 'Optionally limit by country and/or kind,' adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states the tool returns one random place, specifically biased toward lesser-known (long tail) places. This distinct purpose contrasts with sibling tools like get_place (specific place), search_places (query-based), and top_places (ranked).
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 explicitly states the tool is great for discovery and 'place of the day' features, and mentions optional filters. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to siblings, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_placesSearch places by nameAInspect
Search 70,520 notable places worldwide by name (accent- and case-insensitive substring match): ruins, beaches, caves, waterfalls, volcanoes, castles, museums, ghost towns and more. Optionally filter by country (name or ISO code) and kind. Results come best-match-first, then by fame; each carries coordinates, fame rank/tier and links to the map and Wikipedia. If nothing matches, retry with a shorter fragment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Kind of place — key or slug: ruins (Ruins & the uncanny), sacred (Sacred sites), landmark (Built landmarks), natural (Nature & landscapes), parks (Parks & cemeteries), museum (Museums & culture), fun (Fun & leisure) (optional) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Name or part of a name, e.g. "pyramiden" or "plitvice" | |
| country | No | Country name or 2-letter ISO code (optional) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key behaviors: accent- and case-insensitive substring matching, result ordering (best-match then fame), return fields (coordinates, fame rank/tier, links), and retry suggestion. Very transparent.
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?
Efficient three-sentence paragraph with no redundancy. Each sentence adds essential information. Well-structured for quick parsing.
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?
Despite no output schema, description describes return fields (coordinates, fame rank/tier, links). All 4 parameters (1 required) are covered in schema and description. The agent has enough context to use the tool 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 has 100% coverage; description adds value by giving concrete examples (e.g., 'pyramiden' or 'plitvice') and explaining how filters work. Also mentions accent-insensitivity, which is not in 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?
The description clearly states the tool searches places by name, with details on matching behavior (accent- and case-insensitive substring), filters (country/kind), and result ordering. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_place (single place retrieval) and places_near (geographic search).
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?
Provides explicit guidance: use for name-based search with optional filters. Includes actionable tip to retry with shorter fragment if no match. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but sibling context covers some differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
top_placesMost famous placesAInspect
The most famous places worldwide, in one country, or of one kind — ordered by Detourmap fame rank (derived from Wikipedia language coverage; rank 1 is the most famous). The direct answer to "most famous in " and "what are the must-sees in ".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Kind of place — key or slug: ruins (Ruins & the uncanny), sacred (Sacred sites), landmark (Built landmarks), natural (Nature & landscapes), parks (Parks & cemeteries), museum (Museums & culture), fun (Fun & leisure) (optional) | |
| limit | No | How many (default 10) | |
| country | No | Country name or ISO code (optional — omit for worldwide) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: ordering by Detourmap fame rank derived from Wikipedia language coverage. This goes beyond simple purpose and informs the agent of the ranking logic.
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 two sentences: the first states the core function and ordering, the second gives example queries. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.
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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers filtering, ordering, and typical queries. It does not mention pagination or default limit, but the schema already notes the default of 10.
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%, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the three parameters. It restates the filtering options but no new details.
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 clearly states the tool returns the most famous places, ordered by a specific rank, and can be filtered by country and kind. It distinguishes from siblings like get_place (single place) and search_places (search) by focusing on top/famous places.
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 typical use case examples ('most famous <kind> in <country>') but does not explicitly exclude when to use alternatives. However, the context of 'most famous' naturally guides usage.
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!