Galapagos Trip Planner

Galápagos park fee and entry rules

entry_rules

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this for the Galápagos national park entrance fee, the transit control card (TCT) and the entry and visitor rules: fee by nationality group and age, total for a group, where and when each is paid, return ticket, health insurance, stay limit, biosecurity (banned food and plant items), naturalist guides, the 2-metre rule, drones, currency and ATMs, each with its official source. Examples: "How much is the Galápagos park fee for a family of four?" / "¿Cuánto cuesta la entrada al Parque Nacional Galápagos?"

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "entry_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`adults`	No	Travellers 12 and over (default 1).
`nationality`	No	foreign (default), canmercosur (national of a CAN or Mercosur country) or resident (Ecuadorian or resident).
`children_2_to_11`	No	Children aged 2 to 11 (default 0).
`children_under_2`	No	Children under 2, exempt from the park fee (default 0).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`link`	Yes	Page on galapagosislands.info with these inputs filled in.
`note`	Yes
`rules`	Yes
`checked`	Yes
`park_fee`	Yes
`nationality`	Yes
`transit_card`	Yes
`total_entry_usd`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, closed-world lookup, so the description is not obligated to explain mutation risk. It does add useful behavioral context beyond annotations: answers are "each with its official source," implying citations are returned, and the fee is tiered by nationality group and age. It stops short of describing response shape or fallback behavior for unlisted topics.

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 scope is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact enumeration and then two concrete examples. The topic list is dense but every item is a genuinely distinct covered subject rather than filler, though the single long sentence could be broken for scanability.

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?

With an output schema present and all four parameters 100% documented, the description only needs to establish scope and routing, which it does comprehensively. An agent knows what it will get (fee amounts plus rules with sources) and what inputs matter, with no material gaps for a read-only knowledge tool.

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 all four parameters (adults, children_2_to_11, children_under_2, nationality enum) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes that fees vary "by nationality group and age, total for a group," which confirms the intent of the parameters but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific scope statement ("Galápagos national park entrance fee, the transit control card (TCT) and the entry and visitor rules") and then enumerates the exact sub-topics covered, so an agent can tell this is a park-fee/regulation lookup rather than a general trip planner. It does not name any sibling tool to contrast against, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

"Use this for..." explicitly frames the triggering context, and the two sample queries (English and Spanish, fee-for-family-of-four) show the kind of request that should route here. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to siblings such as estimate_trip_cost for total budget questions, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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

All Galapagos Trip Planner 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?