Skip to main content
Glama

watch_trip

Start monitoring one trip for disruption changes over time.

Use this tool when the user wants ongoing monitoring of a trip rather
than a one-off assessment (for a one-off answer, use assess_trip).
Persists the trip as a monitored object and returns its initial assessment
plus a random, unguessable trip_id AND a one-time `owner.owner_token`.
Store BOTH: the trip_id is the (public, shareable) URL handle, the
owner_token is the private key needed to change or stop the trip later.

CREATE vs REFRESH: called with just destinations+dates it CREATES a new
trip every time (it does NOT dedupe on identity — that is deliberate, so
nobody can reach your trip by guessing your itinerary). To update an
existing trip (change its label or webhook), call again passing BOTH its
`trip_id` and `owner_token`; a missing/wrong token is rejected. Each
pipeline run then re-evaluates the trip and appends an update ONLY when
something materially changes (a new/cleared event, a severity/status shift,
or a travel_status change) — never on a calm tick.
Args: destinations — EU-27 ISO2 codes (Greece = "EL") plus the non-EU27
countries we monitor: Norway "NO" (Entur, live), United Kingdom "UK"/"GB"
(TfL, live), Switzerland "CH" (SBB, key-pending → declared blind spot until
keyed); date_from/date_to (YYYY-MM-DD); optional label. An unmonitored code
is rejected with {"error": "unknown_country"} rather than a false all-clear.
Returns {trip_id, assessment, created_at}; invalid inputs return an explicit
{"error": ...}.

Destinations also accept natural input: IATA airport codes (e.g. 'TSR',
'AMS', 'ZRH') and major city names (e.g. 'Timișoara', 'Amsterdam',
'Zürich', 'London'), resolved deterministically to a monitored country
code. The initial assessment includes a 'resolved' list
([{input, country, kind}]) disclosing how each token was mapped
(e.g. 'TSR -> RO via iata-airport'). A token that resolves to a country we
do not monitor is rejected with {'error': 'unknown_country'}; a token we
cannot resolve at all is rejected with
{'error': 'unknown_destination', 'tokens': [...]} — we reject not guess.

Pass `lang` (e.g. "de", "ro", "pl"; default English) to localise the
initial assessment into the traveller's language: the returned
assessment carries the same `localized` block as assess_trip (honest
reassurance, AI-translated-and-LABELLED source text, and the localized
caveats + blind_spots that are never dropped). Localization never becomes a
false all-clear; the aviation handoff discloses the blind spot, not coverage.

Pass `audience` ("tmc" | "hotel" | "ota" | "tour_operator") for role-specific
operational actions — the initial assessment then carries the same `persona`
block as assess_trip (audience + per-event role actions, projected from the
audience-tagged recommendations). Built for the B2B travel-risk buyer.

Pass `notify_webhook_url` (https only) to get PUSH delivery: on every
MATERIAL change the radar POSTs the update record (summary, status
transition, event report URLs) to your URL, signed HMAC-SHA256 over the
raw body (header X-TravelTrends-Signature: sha256=<hex>). The response
then includes `notify.secret` — shown ONLY once, never published; store
it to verify signatures. To change or remove the webhook later, re-call
with the trip_id + owner_token and the new notify_webhook_url (or "" to
remove delivery). After 5 consecutive delivery failures the webhook is
disabled with an honest notify_disabled entry in the trip's updates log.
Non-https or private-network URLs are rejected with
{"error": "invalid_webhook_url"}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNo
labelNo
date_toYes
trip_idNo
audienceNo
date_fromYes
owner_tokenNo
destinationsYes
notify_webhook_urlNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: persistent monitoring, one-time owner_token, deliberate non-deduplication, material-change-only updates, webhook HMAC signing, one-time secret display, and webhook disabling after 5 failures. This is rich, honest behavioral context that matches the annotations: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true are all consistent with the description.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but front-loaded and organized into logical sections: purpose, ownership, create/refresh, parameters, natural input, localization, audience, and webhook behavior. Some redundancy exists, such as restating unknown_country rejection in slightly different forms and the phrase 'honest' appearing multiple times, but given the complexity of the tool, the length is largely justified.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers return values, error cases, authentication/ownership, update semantics, webhook delivery, localization, and audience-specific behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains destinations (EU-27 ISO2, non-EU codes, IATA codes, city names, and resolution behavior), date format (YYYY-MM-DD), lang, audience, label, notify_webhook_url (https only, rejection rules), and trip_id/owner_token update semantics. Every parameter receives meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start monitoring one trip for disruption changes over time.' It clearly distinguishes itself from assess_trip by contrasting ongoing monitoring with one-off assessment, so an agent can select it correctly among siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('ongoing monitoring... rather than a one-off answer') and names the alternative (assess_trip). It also gives detailed create-vs-refresh guidance: call with destinations+dates to create, pass trip_id and owner_token to update, and explains rejection on missing/wrong tokens.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit cross-references to differentiate overlapping tools (e.g., get_trip_updates_since vs whats_changed, assess_trip vs watch_trip). There is no ambiguity in when to use each tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (assess_trip, list_events, watch_trip), some use noun_noun (country_briefing, country_tourism_profile), and one uses a question phrase (whats_changed). This mixed convention reduces predictability.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for a travel-trends server, covering trip assessment, monitoring, update retrieval, event browsing, daily briefing, and tourism statistics. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The core workflows (assess, watch, get updates, explain silence, list events) are well covered. The only notable gap is the absence of trip lifecycle management, such as an unwatch_trip or list_trips tool, which is a minor omission.

Resources