Hit The Road Rentals
Server Details
Search campervans and motorhomes worldwide. 300+ rental companies. AU, NZ, US, CA, UK and more.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- HitTheRoad-Git/hittheroad-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve distinct purposes: list_locations provides city names for search input, while search_campervans performs the actual rental search. No ambiguity exists.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: list_locations and search_campervans. Naming is clear and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal. While it covers basic search needs, for a rental booking domain one might expect additional tools like get_rental_details or create_booking, but the scope is limited to search initiation.
The server only provides a location list and a search that returns a URL to an external site. An agent cannot retrieve detailed rental info, compare options, or book directly, leaving significant workflow gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolslist_locationsARead-onlyInspect
List all searchable pickup cities by country. Call this to find valid city names before searching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Country code filter (e.g. AU, NZ, US). Omit to return all supported countries. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is non-destructive. The description adds that results are 'searchable', which provides a hint about data quality but no additional behavioral details beyond 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?
Two sentences, zero filler. Every word is necessary for the purpose and usage guidance.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no required output schema. The description sufficiently covers its role as a prerequisite for searching. Could improve by briefly noting the output is a list of city names, but not essential.
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?
Schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description. The tool description mentions 'by country' which aligns with the parameter, adding no new 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?
Description clearly states 'List all searchable pickup cities by country', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_campervans' by indicating it provides valid city names before searching.
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?
Explicitly advises 'Call this to find valid city names before searching', indicating when to use it relative to the sibling tool. Could be stronger with an explicit 'do not use for searching', but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_campervansARead-onlyInspect
Search campervan and motorhome rentals. Returns a URL that pre-fills the search form with your trip details. Click Search on the page to see live results with pricing, availability, and booking options from 160+ rental companies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | Pickup city name, e.g. "Sydney", "Auckland", "Los Angeles". Required. | |
| country | Yes | Country code: AU, NZ, US, CA, GB, DE, FR, IT, ES, NL. Required. | |
| pickup_date | Yes | Pickup date YYYY-MM-DD. Required. | |
| dropoff_city | No | Return city if different from pickup (one-way). Optional. | |
| dropoff_date | Yes | Return date YYYY-MM-DD. Required. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool returns a URL pre-filling a search form, not live results. Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe read-only behavior, and the description adds the important workflow detail about clicking Search.
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?
Two efficient sentences front-loaded with purpose and result behavior. No unnecessary words or information.
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 no output schema and good annotations, the description adequately explains the return value (URL) and next steps. However, it does not mention the sibling tool list_locations or when to use it.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only reiterates that city and country are required.
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?
Description clearly states 'Search campervan and motorhome rentals' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool list_locations by explaining the output is a search form URL.
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?
Describes when to use the tool (searching rentals) but does not explicitly state when alternatives like list_locations might be more appropriate. The context provides a sibling tool without comparison.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!