Estimate mobile-data needs and build a provider-neutral connectivity checklist for any trip.
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.
Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one generates a comprehensive travel connectivity guide, the other checks specific device compatibility. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (build_travel_connectivity_guide, check_esim_device_compatibility), with clear action verbs and descriptive nouns. The naming is predictable and uniform.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a travel connectivity domain. While the tools are well-defined, the count is borderline low and may limit the server's utility in broader scenarios.
The tools cover guide creation and device compatibility but miss other potential aspects like network coverage analysis or roaming suggestions (though explicitly excluded). The surface is minimal but functional for its stated narrow scope.
build_travel_connectivity_guideBuild a travel connectivity guideACreates a free, provider-neutral mobile-data estimate and readiness checklist for a travel route. Use it for data budgeting, device preparation, hotspot planning, offline readiness, and connection fallback advice. It does not browse, compare, promote, recommend, price, sell, or link to products, plans, carriers, or connectivity services.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stops | Yes | One to eight destinations in travel order. | |
| locale | No | BCP 47 language tag for the requested guide. | en |
| hotspot | No | Whether one or more travelers expect to share data by hotspot. | |
| travelers | No | Travelers who need connectivity. | |
| usageProfile | No | light for maps and messaging, balanced for everyday use, heavy for frequent media, or remote-work for calls and laptop work. | balanced |
| deviceReadiness | No | confirmed when eSIM support and unlocked status are known, unsure when unverified, or not-supported when the device cannot use eSIM. | unsure |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| stops | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| summary | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| riskSignals | Yes | |
| safeFallbacks | Yes | |
| questionsToConfirm | Yes | |
| readinessChecklist | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the guide is free and provider-neutral, and clarifies boundaries by listing excluded activities. No contradictions, though 'creates' could be seen as slightly conflicting with readOnlyHint, but it's consistent with generating content without side effects.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list use cases and boundaries. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted content.
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 6 parameters (all with schema descriptions), an output schema, and no sibling tools, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage scope, and boundaries. The output schema handles return values, so nothing is missing.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to parameters beyond what is already in the schema. All parameter details are covered by the schema descriptions.
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 creates a mobile-data estimate and readiness checklist for a travel route. It specifies the verb 'creates' and the resource 'travel route', and distinguishes itself as free and provider-neutral. With no sibling tools, it stands alone clearly.
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 lists use cases (data budgeting, device preparation, etc.) and provides a comprehensive list of what the tool does not do (browse, compare, promote, etc.). This gives clear guidance on when to use and when not to.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_esim_device_compatibilityCheck eSIM device compatibilityACheck whether an exact phone model appears in Skyalo's manufacturer-sourced eSIM compatibility catalog. Use for device-readiness questions, including regional variants, carrier locks, EID, and Add eSIM settings. Unknown never means incompatible. This tool does not search, compare, recommend, price, or sell connectivity plans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | Exact phone model, not a broad product family. | |
| locale | No | ||
| region | No | Country or sales region of the exact device variant. | |
| eidPresent | No | ||
| manufacturer | No | ||
| carrierUnlocked | No | ||
| addEsimSettingPresent | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| checks | No | |
| device | No | |
| reason | No | |
| source | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| guidance | No | |
| suggestions | No | |
| catalogStatus | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorldHint false. The description adds context beyond annotations: the result is against a 'manufacturer-sourced' catalog, 'exact' model matching, and the meaning of unknown results ('never means incompatible'). This gives the agent important interpretive nuance not present in structured hints.
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?
Three sentences with no filler: purpose, usage context, caveat, and exclusions. The most important information (what it checks) is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place 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 7-parameter schema and existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: purpose, usage context, and unknown-result interpretation. It does not enumerate every parameter, but the alluded factors are the ones that matter for device-readiness, and the output schema handles return-value details.
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 only 29%, so the description partially compensates by referencing 'regional variants', 'carrier locks', 'EID', and 'Add eSIM settings', which map to region, carrierUnlocked, eidPresent, and addEsimSettingPresent. However, it does not clarify locale or manufacturer parameters, leaving some semantic gaps for a low-coverage 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?
States a specific verb ('check'), resource ('eSIM compatibility catalog'), and the exact scope ('exact phone model'). Clarifies it is a lookup tool, and the final sentence explicitly excludes searching, comparing, recommending, pricing, or selling plans, distinguishing it from broader tools like build_travel_connectivity_guide.
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?
Directly instructs to use for 'device-readiness questions' and lists covered attributes (regional variants, carrier locks, EID, Add eSIM settings). Also provides a crucial interpretation rule ('Unknown never means incompatible') and states what the tool does not do, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
