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 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: searching slots, viewing venue details, listing sports, and setting alerts. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (create_alert, get_venue, list_sports, search_slots).
Four tools is on the lower end but still within a reasonable range for a focused booking/discovery service. Each tool serves a clear role.
The tool set covers search, venue details, sport overview, and alerts, but lacks a direct booking tool. The server name implies booking, yet booking is delegated to external links.
Available Tools
4 toolscreate_alertAInspect
Set up an email alert for the user: LayUp watches for NEW matching slots (e.g. a cancellation freeing up a peak court) and emails them when one appears. Use when the user can't find a slot now and wants to be notified, or asks to 'monitor'/'watch'/'let me know when'. Requires their email. A confirmation email is sent first — the user must click confirm before any alerts fire (so always tell them to check their inbox). LayUp does the watching; the notification arrives by email, not in this chat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | London borough / area / neighbourhood to match (e.g. 'Hackney', 'Maida Vale'). NOT a venue name — to watch a specific venue use venue_names. Omit for all London. | |
| Yes | The user's email address (required — alerts are emailed here). | ||
| sport | No | One of Football, Tennis, Squash, Padel, Swimming. Omit for any. | |
| time_to | No | Latest London time-of-day, 'HH:MM'. | |
| max_price | No | Only alert on slots at or under this GBP price. | |
| time_from | No | Earliest London time-of-day, 'HH:MM' (e.g. '18:00'). | |
| venue_names | No | Pin the alert to specific venues BY NAME, exactly as shown in search results (e.g. ["Hay's Galleria", "Padel Box"]). Use this whenever the user names venues — the server resolves names to the right venue(s). Prefer this over venue_slugs. | |
| venue_slugs | No | Pin the alert to specific venues by their exact venue_slug (only if you already have slug values from search_slots). For most cases use venue_names instead. Omit for any venue. | |
| days_of_week | No | Only alert on these days (e.g. ['Sat','Sun'] for weekends). The alert is standing — it keeps watching these days every week until the user unsubscribes. Omit for any day. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond the annotations: that a confirmation email is sent first, the user must click confirm before alerts fire, and notifications arrive by email not in chat. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds significant transparency.
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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage, requirement, and behavioral notes. No fluff or repetition.
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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the alert lifecycle well, including the confirmation step and email delivery. It doesn't mention error handling or cancellation, but that may be acceptable for an initial setup tool. The parameter description for days_of_week mentions unsubscription, but it's not in the main description.
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 adds some context (e.g., 'area' is not a venue name, 'venue_names' preferred over 'venue_slugs'), but mostly relies on the schema. Minimal additional guidance beyond what the schema already 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 the tool sets up an email alert that watches for new matching slots and emails the user when one appears. It uses specific verbs ('Set up', 'watches', 'emails') and resource ('email alert'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_slots by focusing on long-term monitoring rather than immediate 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 tells when to use it: when the user can't find a slot now and wants to be notified, or asks to 'monitor'/'watch'/'let me know when'. It also implies it's not for immediate booking. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_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!