Search 6,500+ disc golf courses worldwide, find nearby courses from coordinates, and retrieve course details and updates. Free, public, read-only.
Find disc golf courses within a specified radius (km) of given coordinates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of nearby courses to return (1-25, default: 10). | |
| latitude | Yes | Latitude in decimal degrees (-90.0 to 90.0). | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude in decimal degrees (-180.0 to 180.0). | |
| radius_km | No | Search radius in kilometers (0.1 to 100.0 km, default: 25.0). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms radius-based filtering but omits behavioral traits such as read-only safety, whether results are sorted by distance, whether distance is included in each result, or what happens when no courses match. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single 12-word sentence that states the resource, the radius unit, and the coordinate anchor with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the one-sentence description leaves the response shape undefined: the agent cannot know what fields each course contains, whether results are ordered by distance, or how empty result sets are handled. For a 4-parameter tool, the description is too thin to be 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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes 'radius (km)' and 'coordinates' but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 clear verb-resource-scope structure: find + disc golf courses + within a radius of coordinates. The geospatial scope distinguishes it from siblings (get_course, get_recent_updates, search_courses) without needing to open the schema. It loses the fifth point because 'find' is a generic verb and the description does not explicitly contrast it with search_courses.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'of given coordinates' and the required latitude/longitude parameters signal that this tool is for location-based lookups. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_courses, nor any exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve detailed information for a specific disc golf course by its unique ID or alias.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Stable canonical course identifier or alias (1-256 characters). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'retrieve' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and there are no side effects implied. However, the description does not disclose what happens when the ID is not found (e.g., error behavior), nor does it specify the structure of the 'detailed information' returned. While the core behavior is clear, the lack of error handling or response details is a gap for a retrieval tool.
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, well-formed sentence that states the action, target, and identification method. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, nor does it mention potential errors or pagination (though not applicable). The lack of an output schema means the description should at least hint at the return structure. The description is adequate for a simple operation but leaves the agent guessing about the response format, which is a notable 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?
The schema provides 100% coverage of the parameter, describing 'id' as a 'Stable canonical course identifier or alias (1-256 characters)'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat schema info.
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 'Retrieve' with a clear resource ('detailed information for a specific disc golf course') and the method of identification ('by its unique ID or alias'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_courses (which implies search), find_courses_near (location-based), and get_recent_updates (updates). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 phrase 'by its unique ID or alias' clearly implies that this tool is for when the caller already knows a specific identifier, while alternatives like search_courses or find_courses_near are for discovering courses. This provides clear context without explicitly naming alternatives, but the implication is strong enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Discover recently added or updated disc golf courses with change type and timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of recent updates to return (1-50, default: 20). | |
| change_type | No | Filter by update type ('added' for new courses, 'updated' for modified courses). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that results include change type and timestamps, which is useful, but it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, or the exact return structure.
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?
A single 12-word sentence that conveys the core purpose and key returned attributes. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler or 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?
For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no required arguments, the description covers the core use case and indicates output fields. It doesn't specify ordering or exact return shape, but the simplicity and full schema documentation make the definition nearly 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'change type', consistent with the change_type parameter, but adds no semantics or constraints beyond what the schema already documents for limit and change_type.
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 ('Discover'), resource ('recently added or updated disc golf courses'), and key output fields ('change type and timestamps'). The recency focus clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_courses_near, get_course, and search_courses.
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 a clear use case (checking recent course changes), but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or mention alternatives. An agent must infer the boundary from the tool's name and description without explicit comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for disc golf courses by name, city, country, region, hole count, or features.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (1-25, default: 10). | |
| query | No | Text search query for course name, city, or keywords (1-200 characters). | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (0-1000, default: 0). | |
| region | No | State, province, or region code/name (e.g. 'FL', 'OR', 'England'). | |
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code (e.g. 'US', 'GB', 'FI') or country name. | |
| is_free | No | Filter to free-to-play public courses. | |
| is_18_holes | No | Filter to courses with 18 or more holes. | |
| is_pay_to_play | No | Filter to pay-to-play or commercial courses. | |
| is_dog_friendly | No | Filter to dog-friendly courses. | |
| has_multiple_pins | No | Filter to courses with multiple basket/pin positions. | |
| has_multiple_tees | No | Filter to courses with multiple tee pads per hole. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the search functionality and does not disclose result ordering, pagination behavior, how filters combine, or that this is a read-only operation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core capability while leaving parameter details to the schema.
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 11 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain whether the query is required, how filters interact, what the returned results look like, or when an agent should choose this tool over its siblings.
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 schema already documents all 11 parameters in detail. The description's list of searchable fields adds no new meaning beyond what each parameter description already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clear verb ('search') and a specific resource ('disc golf courses'), and lists the search dimensions (name, city, country, region, hole count, features). It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the criteria clearly distinguish it from location-based 'find_courses_near' and single-record 'get_course'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion conditions. While 'search' implies a query scenario, the description leaves the agent to infer when to prefer this over find_courses_near or get_course.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
find_courses_nearget_courseget_recent_updatessearch_coursesClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct query mode: proximity, attribute search, detail lookup, and change tracking. No two tools do the same thing, and the descriptions clearly separate find_near from search.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (find/get/search) with course/courses as the object. Minor variation like 'get_recent_updates' still fits the convention.
Four tools cover a focused read-only disc golf course API without bloat. Each tool addresses a distinct need and the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range.
The surface covers discovery (search and nearby), detail retrieval, and change tracking, which are the core operations for this domain. No obvious missing workflow for a read-only course directory.