Ukraine entry rules, border crossings, customs, safety and war-risk travel insurance. 10 languages.
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 3.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Search and search_content overlap in purpose, but search covers multi-language guides while search_content targets a specific language, so they are distinguishable. Other tools like fetch, get_cluster_summary, and the insurance tools have clear distinct roles.
Some tools use a verb_noun pattern (create_draft, estimate_quote, get_cluster_summary, get_insurance_facts), while others are single verbs (fetch, search) or a different verb_noun (search_content). This inconsistency may confuse agents expecting a uniform convention.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of travel guidance and war-risk insurance. Each tool serves a distinct function without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set covers content search and retrieval, topic summaries, insurance quoting, draft creation, and regulatory facts, covering the core workflows. Minor gaps exist around direct policy management, but the checkout link handles purchase.
create_draftCreate prefilled checkout linkABuild a checkout link to ukraineborder.com with the trip parameters pre-filled, so the traveller completes identity, email verification and payment there. Carries no personal data: only non-personal trip parameters in the URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | Yes | BCP-47 short code; one of the 10 supported locales. | |
| exitDate | No | DD.MM.YYYY (optional). | |
| coverageTier | Yes | ||
| enteringDate | No | DD.MM.YYYY (optional). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | |
| magicLink | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, indicating no side effects. The description adds valuable context by stating that the tool carries no personal data and only non-personal trip parameters in the URL, which is beyond what annotations convey. This builds trust and clarifies privacy 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no irrelevant details. Every clause adds information: the destination site, the prefilled nature, the traveller's subsequent steps, and the non-personal data guarantee.
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 moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema plus annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It clarifies the tool's purpose, the data involved, and the expected traveller flow. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but the output schema likely covers that, so the description need not.
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 75%, with descriptions for locale, exitDate, and enteringDate, but coverageTier lacks a description. The tool description adds a general note about 'trip parameters' but does not elaborate on individual parameter semantics or format beyond what the schema already provides. It does not fully compensate for the missing coverageTier explanation.
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 that the tool builds a checkout link to ukraineborder.com with prefilled trip parameters. It uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('checkout link') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on quotes, searches, or summaries.
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: when a traveller needs a prefilled link to complete identity verification and payment. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like estimate_quote or search_content, and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
estimate_quoteEstimate insurance price (indicative)AApproximate price for a war-risk travel policy, computed locally from published rates; not a partner quote and not a binding offer. The exact amount is calculated and charged during checkout on ukraineborder.com.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | Yes | BCP-47 short code; one of the 10 supported locales. | |
| coverageTier | Yes | minimum (UAH 100,000 ≈ EUR 1,900) | standard (UAH 1,575,000 ≈ EUR 30,000) | maximum (same sum + radiation cover). War-risk cover is included in all three tiers. | |
| travellerCount | Yes | ||
| insuranceLengthDays | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| days | Yes | |
| quoteUrl | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| coverageTier | Yes | |
| perPersonEur | Yes | |
| travellerCount | Yes | |
| radiationIncluded | Yes | |
| indicativeTotalEur | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: the calculation is performed locally from published rates, the result is indicative and non-binding, and the final charge occurs elsewhere. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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, front-loaded with the core action ('Approximate price'), and avoids redundancy. Every clause contributes value, including the caveat about non-binding status and the checkout reference.
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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the nature of the result (approximate, non-binding), and the follow-up action (checkout). It does not detail return values, but the output schema covers that, so the description is sufficiently 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?
The schema description coverage is 50%, leaving insuranceLengthDays and travellerCount without semantic explanations beyond numeric constraints. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters, so it adds no additional meaning. This falls at the baseline for a schema that partially covers parameters.
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 ('Estimate') and a specific resource ('price for a war-risk travel policy'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_insurance_facts by clarifying it is a local, non-binding calculation. The phrase 'not a partner quote' reinforces its distinct role.
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 clearly implies when to use the tool: for an indicative price estimate before checkout. It explicitly states that it is not a binding offer and that the exact amount is charged during checkout, providing context on its limitations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list specific situations to avoid, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetchFetch documentARetrieve the full text of a UkraineBorder document by the id returned from search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id from a prior search result. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| url | Yes | |
| text | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| metadata | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is known. The description adds that it returns 'full text' and requires an id from search, providing some behavioral context beyond the schema, but no details on return format or errors.
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 action and resource. No redundant information or elaboration, making it highly concise.
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 one parameter, output schema present, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential usage. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but for a simple fetch operation it is sufficiently 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?
The schema already documents the 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, describing it as 'Document id from a prior search result.' The description repeats this same information, adding no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcement of the search dependency.
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's action ('Retrieve the full text') and the target resource ('UkraineBorder document'). It distinguishes from sibling search tools by specifying this tool returns full text for a specific id.
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 says 'by the id returned from search' which implies a specific workflow (use after search). It doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for the common use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_cluster_summaryGet topic cluster summaryBStructured summary of a topic cluster (border-crossings, customs, safety, insurance, essentials) in the requested language, with its guide list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | Yes | BCP-47 short code; one of the 10 supported locales. | |
| segment | Yes | Topic cluster segment. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| lead | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| groups | Yes | |
| cluster | Yes | |
| segment | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns a structured summary with a guide list in the requested language. It doesn't contradict annotations, but doesn't reveal additional side effects or prerequisites.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the key outcome. No wasted words.
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 read-only tool with two enum parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic return value. However, it lacks usage context and alternative distinction, so slightly incomplete.
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?
Input schema describes both parameters with enums and descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description mentions 'requested language' and lists the segment values, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the 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?
Clearly states it returns a structured summary of a topic cluster with segments and a guide list. The verb is implied as 'get' from the name. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the content scope, but does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving cluster summaries in a locale, but doesn't mention when not to use or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_insurance_factsGet insurance regulatory factsARegulatory facts about the war-risk + radiation-risk travel insurance product and the licensed entities behind it (insurer, agent, regulator, registry).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | Yes | BCP-47 short code; one of the 10 supported locales. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes | |
| insurer | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| registry | Yes | |
| parentGroup | Yes | |
| marketRangeEurPerDay | Yes | |
| territorialCoverageNote | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent, describing a read-only factual lookup. It adds little behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but does not contradict them.
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, compact noun phrase with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the key subject 'regulatory facts' and costs the agent zero extra reading time.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description gives sufficient scope by naming the product and the involved entity types. It does not mention the locale's role in language, but that is already covered in the schema.
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 fully describes the only parameter (locale) with an enum and description, so description-level compensation is unnecessary. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is fine given 100% schema coverage.
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 identifies the resource: regulatory facts about a specific war-risk + radiation-risk travel insurance product and its licensed entities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a narrow regulatory scope, though the verb 'get' is only in the tool name, not the description.
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 lookup use case for regulatory facts, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like search or fetch. This is adequate but minimal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch UkraineBorderASearch UkraineBorder's guides for foreign travellers to Ukraine (border crossings, customs, safety, visas and war-risk travel insurance) across 10 languages. Returns matching documents with ids to fetch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating that it returns matching documents with IDs to fetch and covers 10 languages, which helps the agent understand the subsequent workflow. No contradicting behavior disclosed.
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 concise sentences convey purpose, scope, and return behavior without wasted words. The information is front-loaded and every sentence 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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete—it covers scope, languages, and return pattern. The only gap is lack of differentiation from the sibling tool 'search_content', but this is a minor omission.
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 input schema covers the 'query' parameter 100% with a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the context of the search scope, so the baseline 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 specifies a clear verb ('Search') and resource ('UkraineBorder's guides') with added scope (border crossings, customs, safety, visas, insurance) and language coverage, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'search_content'.
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 is implied for finding Ukraine travel guides, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tool 'search_content' is not mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_contentSearch content (localized)ASearch UkraineBorder articles in a specific language; returns top relevant chunks with links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| locale | Yes | BCP-47 short code; one of the 10 supported locales. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds that the tool 'returns top relevant chunks with links,' providing useful information about ranking and output format beyond what annotations convey. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and clearly communicates the core functionality without any filler or repetition.
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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, language scope, and return format (chunks with links). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks advanced details like pagination, but these are not necessary for a straightforward search 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?
Only 'locale' has a schema description, giving 33% coverage. The description helps clarify the meaning of 'query' (search terms) and 'locale' (language), but it does not address the 'limit' parameter. The schema prescribes defaults and constraints, partially compensating for the absence of explanation.
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 (Search), the resource (UkraineBorder articles), and the specific scope (in a specific language), which distinguishes it from the generic sibling 'search' tool. The verb and resource are specific and 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 that this tool is for language-specific searches, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it lacks an explicit exclusion of the generic 'search' sibling.
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!
