LayUp Sports Booking
Server Details
Search bookable London courts, pitches, lanes and pickup games across every major UK provider.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: list_sports provides an overview, search_slots allows filtering across venues, and get_venue drills into a specific venue. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_venue, list_sports, search_slots) with underscores, making the purpose clear and predictable.
Three tools are ideal for this domain: overview, search, and drill-down. The count is neither too few nor too many, and each tool earns its place.
The tool set covers the main use cases: listing sports, searching for available slots with filters, and getting details for a specific venue. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of browsing bookable slots.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_venueARead-onlyInspect
List upcoming bookable slots at a single venue, identified by its venue_slug (as returned by search_slots). Use to drill into one venue after a search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max slots to return (1-30, default 15). | |
| venue_slug | Yes | The venue_slug from a search_slots result. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and description adds little beyond purpose. It does not elaborate on behavior like pagination or result structure, but annotations cover the critical safety aspect.
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 with no fluff: purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple list tool with good schema and read-only annotation, the description is sufficient. It could mention output format, but it's not critical given the straightforward semantics.
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 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond schema descriptions, but it reinforces the venue_slug source.
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?
The description clearly states it lists upcoming bookable slots at a single venue, using the venue_slug from search_slots. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's a drill-down after a search.
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?
The description explicitly says to use after search_slots to drill into one venue. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, 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.
list_sportsARead-onlyInspect
List the sports LayUp covers with a count of slots available in the next 7 days. Useful as a quick overview before a more specific search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns counts of slots for the next week, providing behavioral detail 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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and include usage guidance. Every word adds value.
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?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key return values (list of sports with counts). Could be slightly more explicit about the response structure, but sufficient given simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description automatically provides full context. Baseline for 0 param tools is 4, and the description adds no confusion.
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?
The description clearly states it lists sports covered by LayUp with slot counts for the next 7 days. It distinguishes from siblings by positioning as a quick overview before a more specific search.
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?
The description explicitly positions the tool as 'useful as a quick overview before a more specific search,' implying usage for initial exploration and suggesting that search_slots is for detailed queries. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_slotsARead-onlyInspect
Search bookable sports slots in London across every provider LayUp aggregates. Use when a user wants to find a court, pitch, lane, class or pickup game for football, tennis, squash, padel or swimming. Filter by sport, area/borough, date range, time of day and max price. Returns upcoming slots with venue, London-local time, price, provider and a booking link. Times default to the next 7 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | London borough, area or venue name to match (e.g. 'Hackney', 'Southwark', 'Clissold'). | |
| limit | No | Max results to return (1-30, default 15). | |
| sport | No | One of Football, Tennis, Squash, Padel, Swimming. | |
| date_to | No | ISO date or datetime — latest start. Defaults to 7 days out. | |
| time_to | No | London-local latest start time of day, 'HH:MM'. | |
| date_from | No | ISO date or datetime — earliest start. Defaults to now. | |
| max_price | No | Maximum price in GBP. Published prices above this are removed; unpublished-price slots ('Check App', common for padel/tennis) are kept and flagged. | |
| time_from | No | London-local earliest start time of day, 'HH:MM' (e.g. '18:00'). Samples the soonest upcoming slots; combine with date_from to target a specific day. | |
| booking_type | No | 'spot' = book one place (pickup game / swim seat), 'court' = whole court, 'pitch' = whole pitch. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds return fields (venue, time, price, provider, booking link) and default behavior (next 7 days), providing useful context beyond the 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?
The description is a single paragraph of 5 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides essential information without waste.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, open-world hint), the description covers purpose, usage, filter overview, return fields, and defaults. It lacks pagination details but is mostly complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description summarizes filter dimensions (sport, area, date range, time, max price) but adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema provides.
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?
The description clearly states 'Search bookable sports slots in London' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_venue' and 'list_sports' by focusing on searching across providers.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use when a user wants to find a court, pitch, lane, class or pickup game...' and lists filter criteria. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
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!