variotrip route eSIM configurator

Price grid for a route

price_grid

Read-onlyIdempotent

The same route priced for several trip lengths (days, max 8) and several pool sizes (gb, max 6), in one call — e.g. to compare with other providers or to find the best fit. Same server prices as quote_route; each cell has its own buy_url.

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": {
      "route": "<route>",
      "days": "<days>"
    },
    "name": "price_grid"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gb`	No	Optional: up to 6 pool sizes for the whole route in whole GB, e.g. [5,10,20]. Omit = sized for normal use from each trip length.
`days`	Yes	Up to 8 trip lengths, e.g. [7,14,21,30].
`route`	Yes	The countries of the trip in any order (1–8, each once).
`bucket`	No	Optional language-region bucket the customer shops in, e.g. en-gb, de-de (sets currency and link locale). Defaults from language.
`currency`	No	Optional ISO 4217 override for prices.
`language`	No	ISO language of the conversation, e.g. en, de, ja. Localizes country names and sets the language/currency of links and prices.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / route / description

Previous value: -"The countries of the trip in travel order (1–8, each once)."New value: +"The countries of the trip in any order (1–8, each once)."

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: prices are guaranteed identical to quote_route, and each result cell carries its own buy_url. It does not warn about the combinatorial cost of the call (up to 8x6 cells) or anything about response shape beyond the per-cell link.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads what is produced and its limits, the second carries the two facts an agent cannot get from structured fields (price parity with quote_route, per-cell buy_url). No filler and no repetition of annotation content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the definition plus the fully described schema covers everything needed to invoke it correctly, and the buy_url mention gives partial return-value orientation. A note on how many cells a call generates or the cost of large grids would close the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the 'omit = cheapest network' and 'omit = sized for normal use' defaults. The description only restates the days/gb caps already enforced by maxItems, adding no new syntax, format, or interaction semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('the same route priced for several trip lengths ... and several pool sizes ... in one call') and pins the two axes with their caps (days max 8, gb max 6). By calling out 'same server prices as quote_route', it also positions itself relative to the closest sibling, so an agent can tell the grid tool from the single-quote tool without opening either 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 concrete motivating scenarios ('to compare with other providers or to find the best fit'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. It stops short of an explicit exclusion such as 'use quote_route for a single trip length', so the routing decision is clear in context but not fully spelled out.

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

All variotrip route eSIM configurator 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?