Ferryhopper
Server Details
The Ferryhopper MCP server is a connector for LLMs and AI Agents in maritime travel that exposes ferry routes, schedules, and booking options. It enables AI assistants to search ports and connections across 33 countries and 190+ ferry operators, provide real-time ferry itineraries with indicative prices, and assist users with planning island-hopping or multi-leg journeys by processing natural language queries about ferry times, passenger counts, and travel durations.
- 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 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_direct_connections_for_ports focuses on connections between ports, get_ports provides port details, and search_trips finds specific ferry trips. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_direct_connections_for_ports, get_ports, search_trips) with clear, descriptive names. No deviations or mixed conventions are present.
With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a ferry booking domain, as it lacks operations like booking trips, managing reservations, or checking availability beyond a specific date. However, the tools cover basic querying needs.
The toolset is significantly incomplete for a ferry booking server, missing core operations such as booking, cancellation, payment, or user account management. It only supports querying ports and trips, leaving agents unable to perform essential actions.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_direct_connections_for_portsGet Direct ConnectionsBRead-onlyInspect
Get a list of all the direct connections between ports
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| portLocation | Yes | Location name or search term used to find matching ports (not limited to exact port codes). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| departurePort | Yes | The name of the departure port |
| connectedDestinations | Yes | List of ports directly connected to the departure port |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world aspects, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It implies listing connections but doesn't detail output format, pagination, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration.
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 simple single parameter, high schema coverage, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a read-only query tool. It could improve by addressing sibling tool differentiation or usage context, but it's adequate for the tool's complexity.
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%, with the parameter 'portLocation' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without extra value.
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 ('Get') and resource ('direct connections between ports'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ports' or 'search_trips' beyond the 'direct connections' focus, which is somewhat implied but not explicit.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ports' or 'search_trips'. The description only states what it does, without context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_portsGet PortsARead-onlyInspect
Get a list of global ports and their details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ports | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds minimal context by specifying 'global ports and their details,' but lacks details on behavior like response format or limitations. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 (0 parameters, read-only, non-destructive) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could improve by hinting at the output structure or differentiating from siblings, but it adequately covers the basic purpose for this low-complexity 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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter information, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable, and it implies the tool fetches all ports without filtering, which is useful context.
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 action ('Get a list') and resource ('global ports and their details'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_direct_connections_for_ports' or 'search_trips', which might have overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention contexts like needing port details without filtering or connections, nor does it reference sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_tripsSearch TripsARead-onlyInspect
Get a list available ferry trips between two ports on a specific date
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Departure date in ISO format YYYY-MM-DD (e.g. 2026-03-15). | |
| arrivalLocation | Yes | Arrival location as a human-readable name or search term (e.g. city, port name), not a port code. | |
| departureLocation | Yes | Departure location as a human-readable name or search term (e.g. city, port name), not a port code. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| foundDirectItinerariesForTrip | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns ('list available ferry trips') and the search scope ('between two ports on a specific date'), which complements the annotations without contradicting them. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 moderate complexity (search with three parameters), rich annotations (read-only, open-world), and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic operation and scope, though it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines or behavioral details like result limitations.
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%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (date format, location formats). The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that parameters are for departure/arrival locations and date, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already covers.
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 specific action ('Get a list'), resource ('available ferry trips'), and scope ('between two ports on a specific date'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on trip search rather than port connections or port lists, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 context (searching for ferry trips between ports on a date) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_direct_connections_for_ports or get_ports. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios.
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!