Skip to main content
Glama

VoyageHacks

by com.voyagehacks

Get travel eSIM links for a destination

get_esim_links
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return travel eSIM store links (Airalo, covering 200+ countries, plus Yesim, Saily and Drimsim) together with up to four VoyageHacks eSIM guides for that destination covering real per-GB prices, coverage, setup steps and which phones support eSIM. Useful when a user asks about mobile data abroad, SIM cards, roaming charges, staying online on a trip or tethering a laptop. It returns store pages: no live plan prices, no coverage check for a specific handset, and no purchase or activation. Affiliate links: VoyageHacks may earn a commission at no additional cost to the traveler, which should be disclosed when the links are presented.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoLanguage of the VoyageHacks guides returned. One of: en, de, fr, es, it, pl, cs, ja, nl, pt, zh. Defaults to "en".
destinationNoCountry or region the data plan is for, e.g. Japan, Europe, USA.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidesYesMatching VoyageHacks guides that can be cited as sources.
providersYes
disclosureYes
destinationNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the description's disclosures go beyond them: it returns store pages, not live pricing, cannot check specific handsets, and cannot purchase/activate. It also transparently discloses the affiliate commission and the need to mention it, which is valuable behavioral context.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: core output, intended use cases, limitations, and affiliate disclosure. The description is structured front-loaded with the main purpose and stays reasonably compact for the amount of context it conveys.

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 link-returning tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, what is not returned, when to use it, and a required disclosure policy.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'lang' and 'destination' clearly. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning, 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies a clear action ('Return') and resource ('travel eSIM store links... plus VoyageHacks eSIM guides'). It differentiates from sibling link tools by focusing on eSIM specifically and listing the exact stores covered.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: 'when a user asks about mobile data abroad, SIM cards, roaming charges...' and states limitations like 'no live plan prices, no coverage check... no purchase or activation.' It does not name a specific sibling alternative, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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

All VoyageHacks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools split into clear families: category-specific link builders, a whole-trip aggregate link builder, article search/fetch, and gear search/recommendation. The only mild overlap is between get_booking_links and the individual category link tools, but their aggregate-vs-category purpose is explicitly described, so an agent should rarely misselect.

Naming Consistency5/5

Nearly all tools follow the verb_noun snake_case pattern, led by the get_<category>_links family, with search_articles and search_travel_gear matching the same convention. There is no camelCase, no mixed verb styles, and the pattern is highly predictable from the tool names alone.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well-scoped for a travel planning and affiliate-link server: seven category link builders, one aggregate trip link builder, two article tools, and two travel gear tools. Each tool covers a distinct part of the workflow and none feels redundant or like padding.

Completeness4/5

The travel-planning surface is largely complete: research, flights, hotels, airport transfers, car rental, eSIM, VPN, credit cards, and gear are all covered, with an aggregate tool for whole-trip planning. Minor gaps, such as no dedicated train or attractions/tours link builder, keep it from a perfect score.

Resources