Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

orizn-visa-mcp

by io.github.MattJeff
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compare destinations

compare_destinations
Read-onlyIdempotent

[needs a free API key — this call will fail without one: https://visa.orizn.app/visa-api/register?source=mcp-remote, then reconnect with ?key=] Compare up to 2525 destinations costs 25 requests. Ask for the destinations the user actually named, not a whole region. Needs the Starter plan ($149/month, 30,000 requests) or above; on a free key this call is refused before anything is charged, with the upgrade link.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "passport": "<passport>",
      "destinations": "<destinations>"
    },
    "name": "compare_destinations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoLanguage of the description field. One of: fr, en, es, pt, de, ja, ko, zh, ru, it, ar, hi, th, vi, tl. Defaults to en.
passportYesTraveller's passport, ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 (e.g. FRA).
destinationsYes1 to 25 ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 destination codes, e.g. ["JPN","THA","VNM"]. Duplicates are removed before billing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description goes well beyond them: cost of 25 requests per call, a plan gate (Starter, $149/month, 30,000 requests), and explicit failure semantics ("refused before anything is charged" on a free key). That is unusually strong disclosure of billing and access behavior; it only lacks anything about the shape of a successful response.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The most operationally important fact (25 requests per call, plan gating) is present, but it is wrapped in a long bracketed registration preamble and marketing-style pricing copy with an upgrade link. The rendering "2525" is ambiguous, and the core purpose sentence is not front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Access, cost, and failure behavior are well covered, which matters for a gated read-only tool. But with no output schema, the description never indicates what a comparison result contains (the schema's "description field" hints at per-destination text), and it leaves the sibling-selection question unresolved.

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 coverage is 100%, so passport codes, language enum values, and the 1–25 destination limit are already documented. The description adds one nuance — request only user-named destinations rather than a whole region — but offers no detail on billing interaction with the destinations array beyond what the schema already states about duplicate removal.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Compare up to 25 destinations costs 25 requests" does state a verb and resource, but the purpose is buried after a bracketed API-key/registration preamble and never says what is being compared (visa requirements across destinations). It also gives no differentiation from siblings like quick_visa_check or check_visa_requirement, which sound equally applicable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Ask for the destinations the user actually named, not a whole region" is a real usage constraint on input scope, which is helpful. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over check_visa_requirement or quick_visa_check, so the agent must guess between siblings with overlapping semantics.

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

All orizn-visa-mcp toolsInspect
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