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 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but `search` and `search_content` are both search functions with overlapping behavior, which can confuse an agent. The rest are clearly separated by resource and action.
Names generally follow a verb_noun pattern (create_draft, estimate_quote, get_cluster_summary), but `fetch` and `search` are bare verbs, and `search_content` mixes a verb with a noun. Overall predictable with minor deviations.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its dual purpose of travel guidance and insurance. Each tool addresses a clear need without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle for the stated domain: searching content, retrieving full documents, getting structured summaries, obtaining insurance facts, estimating quotes, and creating checkout drafts. No significant gaps are apparent.
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?
The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a key behavioral trait: "Carries no personal data — only non-personal trip parameters in the URL." It also explains what the traveller will do (complete identity, email verification, payment), adding context that annotations do not provide.
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 purpose, and contains no extraneous details. It efficiently communicates the action and data privacy aspect.
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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context for selection: it states the domain (ukraineborder.com), the outcome, and the privacy guarantee. No major gaps are apparent, though it doesn't mention pagination or return format, which are covered by the output 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 description refers generically to "trip parameters" which maps to the schema's parameters, but it doesn't describe individual parameters. Schema coverage is 75% (locale, exitDate, enteringDate have descriptions; coverageTier does not), so the description adds only marginal value and doesn't compensate for the undocumented coverageTier.
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 function: "Build a checkout link to ukraineborder.com with the trip parameters pre-filled." It specifies a concrete action and resource, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like estimate_quote or search, focusing on generating a checkout link.
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: this is for when a traveller needs to complete identity, email verification, and payment on the checkout site. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough to differentiate from siblings that handle quotes or content searches.
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 (€3,000) | standard (€30,000) | maximum (+radiation) | |
| 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?
While annotations already declare this as read-only, the description adds behavioral context by noting the price is 'computed locally from published rates' and that it is non-binding. This goes beyond the annotation's safety profile and clarifies the tool's computational nature and limitations.
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 primary purpose, and each sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does and its non-binding nature, the second clarifies where exact pricing occurs. There is no redundant or filler 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's moderate complexity (4 parameters), existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose, its local computation, and its indicative nature, and points to checkout for exact amounts, providing enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.
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 description adds no information about parameters, leaving the schema to carry the burden. Schema descriptions exist for locale and coverageTier, but travellerCount and insuranceLengthDays lack descriptive text. Names and ranges are self-explanatory, and coverageTier includes meaningful details, so the schema is partially helpful, but the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter 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 tool estimates an approximate price for a war-risk travel policy, using a specific verb ('Approximate price') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it is not a partner quote or binding offer, which is a unique identifier among the sibling tools.
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 clear context that this tool is for indicative estimates only and explicitly states that the exact amount is calculated during checkout, indicating when not to use it. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or provide explicit when-to-use versus sibling comparisons.
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 establish the read-only, non-destructive nature via readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the tool 'returns matching documents with ids to fetch', which informs the agent that results are IDs for subsequent retrieval via the fetch tool. It also communicates the multilingual scope, going beyond the annotations.
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-structured sentence that packs in the target resource, topic scope, language coverage, and return format without any redundancy. Every clause contributes meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the essential aspects: what is searched (UkraineBorder guides), scope (10 languages), and return behavior (document IDs for fetching). It does not explicitly describe pagination or result limits, but those are not critical for an initial invocation, and the output schema would handle structural 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?
The schema covers the only parameter (query) with a description, and at 100% coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by indicating that the query searches the guides, but it does not provide any additional constraints, formatting, or example values 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?
The description clearly states the tool searches UkraineBorder's guides, specifying the exact resource (guides for foreign travellers to Ukraine), the topics covered (border crossings, customs, safety, visas, insurance), and the scope (10 languages). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_content, which likely searches broader 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?
The description gives clear context that this tool is intended for searching UkraineBorder's traveller guides, which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, such as 'use search_content for other content types', so it misses the 'when not to use' guidance that would merit a 5.
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!
