SimoraGo travel eSIM plans

Recommend a travel eSIM for a trip

recommend_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Recommend which travel eSIM to buy for a trip. Give the destination (country, region or city), any other countries on the same trip, the trip length and how the traveller uses data (light: maps and messages; normal: plus social media and browsing; heavy: video, video calls or hotspot). Estimates the data needed and returns up to 3 plans valid for the whole trip, each with a reason: best_fit (cheapest that covers the estimate), budget (cheaper, below the estimate) and roomier (more data). Each plan has its price in USD, data, daily cap, hotspot rule, networks and page link.

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": {
      "destination": "<destination>",
      "trip_days": "<trip_days>"
    },
    "name": "recommend_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`usage`	No	How the traveller uses data: light (maps, messages), normal (plus social media, browsing; default) or heavy (video, video calls, hotspot).
`locale`	No	Language for plan names, destination names and page links: en, es, de, fr, pt or he. Default en.
`trip_days`	Yes	Trip length in days (the whole trip for several countries).
`destination`	Yes	Where the traveller is going: a country, region or city, by name or ISO code (Mexico, JP, Europe, Rome).
`also_countries`	No	Other countries on the same trip, by name or ISO code; only plans covering all of them are recommended.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

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, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioural substance the annotations do not: it estimates data from usage tier, caps results at 3 plans, defines the three reason labels (best_fit, budget, roomier) and enumerates the per-plan fields returned, including USD price, daily cap and hotspot rule — valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then inputs, then outputs — an efficient ordering with no filler. The middle sentence duplicates the usage-tier definitions already in the schema, which is the only real waste.

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?

For a read-only recommendation tool with no output schema, the description covers the input contract, the estimation behaviour, the result cap and the exact shape and labelling of returned plans. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it and interpret the response 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by framing also_countries as 'other countries on the same trip' with the constraint that only plans covering all of them are returned, and by tying trip_days to the whole multi-country trip. The usage tiers are restated near-verbatim from the schema, so the gain is modest rather than decisive.

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 and resource ('Recommend which travel eSIM to buy for a trip') and describes the return as up to 3 labelled plans with reasons, which implicitly separates it from the plain listing behaviour of search_plans and get_plan. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for invoking it: supply destination, any other countries on the same trip, trip length and a data-usage tier, and notes that returned plans are valid for the whole trip. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. search_plans for raw listings, check_coverage for eligibility) or stating when not to use it.

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

All SimoraGo travel eSIM plans tools Inspect

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

Need Help?