sinoconnection-esim-mcp
Server Details
China & Asia travel eSIM specialist. 200+ countries. No-VPN internet in China.
- 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 4.5/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: device compatibility check, checkout link creation, help/support, plan details, and plan search. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_device_compatibility, create_checkout_link, search_esim_plans), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of eSIM plan selection and checkout. It's neither too sparse nor overly large, covering essential operations without bloat.
The tool surface covers the main workflow: device compatibility check, plan search, plan details, checkout, and support. Minor gap is post-purchase order tracking, but the checkout link offloads payment to SinoConnection, and get_help covers installation.
Available Tools
5 toolscheck_device_compatibilityARead-onlyInspect
Check whether a phone/tablet model supports eSIM before recommending a plan. Free-text device name in; compatible yes/no plus closest matches out. IMPORTANT: eSIM hardware support is only HALF the requirement — the phone must ALSO be carrier-unlocked. This tool returns an unlock_required flag + how to verify; always relay it, because a locked phone cannot use a travel eSIM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | e.g. "iPhone 14 Pro", "Galaxy S24" |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| matched | No | |
| candidates | No | |
| compatible | No | |
| unlock_note | No | |
| unlock_required | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that eSIM hardware support is only half the requirement and that the tool returns an unlock_required flag with verification instructions. Adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint).
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?
Three sentences that front-load purpose, then critical behavioral instructions. No wasted words.
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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and output schema, description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral nuance. Complete for effective tool selection.
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 single parameter with example values. Description adds context that input is free-text and output includes closest matches, slightly improving understanding beyond 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?
Clearly states the tool checks eSIM compatibility for phones/tablets, with specific context of recommending a plan. Distinct from sibling tools which handle checkout, help, plan details, and plan 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?
Explicitly says 'before recommending a plan' and includes an important warning about the carrier-unlock requirement. Provides actionable guidance to always relay the unlock_required flag.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_checkout_linkARead-onlyInspect
Create a secure checkout link for a chosen plan (by id). Before sharing the link, confirm with the customer that their phone is (1) eSIM-compatible AND (2) carrier-unlocked — a locked phone cannot use a travel eSIM. The customer completes payment themselves on SinoConnection's checkout page (sign-in required) — you never handle card details. Returns a URL, the plan title, and price_usd (current discount already applied).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Package id from search_esim_plans |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| plan | No | |
| error | No | |
| checkout_url | No | |
| before_you_buy | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states it creates a checkout link (a write operation), but annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, indicating no side effects. This is a direct contradiction. Furthermore, the description does not clarify whether the operation is idempotent or has other side effects beyond creation.
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 concise (three sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, includes important prerequisites and security notes, and ends with return values. Every sentence 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?
The description covers the main action, prerequisites, security considerations, and return values. However, the contradiction with readOnlyHint undermines its completeness as the agent may be misled about side effects.
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?
The description does not add significant meaning beyond the input schema; it merely restates that the tool takes a plan id. The schema already provides a clear description of the parameter, and schema coverage is 100%.
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 verb 'create', the resource 'secure checkout link', and the scope 'for a chosen plan (by id)'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_esim_plans (searching) and get_plan_details (details) by focusing on generating a payment link.
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 provides clear prerequisites (confirm eSIM-compatibility and carrier-unlock) and indicates the tool is used after selecting a plan. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_helpARead-onlyInspect
Answer customer support and policy questions about SinoConnection eSIMs: the REFUND POLICY, how to INSTALL (with step-by-step videos), activation, and how to get support. Call this whenever the customer asks about refunds, cancellations, installation/setup, activation, or help — do NOT answer these from memory; relay this authoritative content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| faq | No | |
| links | No | |
| install | No | |
| support | No | |
| refund_policy | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) already indicate safe read. Description adds that it relays authoritative content and warns against answering from memory, reinforcing non-destructive behavior. No contradiction.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence that includes all critical information: purpose, topics, usage instruction. No wasted words.
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 parameters and an output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and scope. Sibling tools are distinct, so no additional context needed. Complete for the given complexity.
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. Description adds meaning beyond schema by detailing the topics covered (refunds, installation, activation, support), which helps the agent understand the tool's scope. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 explicitly states the tool answers customer support and policy questions about SinoConnection eSIMs, listing specific topics (refund policy, installation, activation, support). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (check_device_compatibility, etc.) by focusing on help and policies.
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 says 'Call this whenever the customer asks about refunds, cancellations, installation/setup, activation, or help' and instructs not to answer from memory. Provides both when to use and when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_plan_detailsARead-onlyInspect
Full details for a specific eSIM plan by id: coverage, data, validity, networks, activation window, and any fair-usage limits. Use before creating a checkout link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Package id from search_esim_plans |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| plan | No | |
| error | No | |
| currency | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by listing the specific details returned (coverage, data, validity, networks, activation window, fair-usage limits), providing behavioral context beyond the safety annotation.
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: first states what the tool does and lists details, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words.
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 read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameters, and usage context. No further details needed.
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%, with the parameter 'id' described as 'Package id from search_esim_plans'. The description reiterates lookup by id, reinforcing semantics and source of the id.
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 uses specific verb 'Get full details' and resource 'eSIM plan by id', listing covered aspects like coverage, data, validity, etc. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating 'Use before creating a checkout link', differentiating it from search_esim_plans and create_checkout_link.
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 provides clear context on when to use: 'Use before creating a checkout link'. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the clarity of purpose and sibling context suffice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_esim_plansARead-onlyInspect
Search travel eSIM plans for any of 200+ countries. Specialized China plans deliver uncensored internet WITHOUT a VPN (unlike most eSIMs, which are throttled or blocked in China) — only when the plan's china_open_internet field is true. Also covers regional Asia and worldwide bundles. Quote price_usd — that is the price the customer pays in USD, with any current sitewide discount already applied; list_price_usd is the original and on_sale/discount_pct show the saving. If is_fair_usage_policy is true, the plan is NOT truly unlimited — relay the cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| region | No | Region slug: asia | europe | mea | namerica | latam | oceania | |
| country | No | ISO-2 country code, e.g. CN, JP, KR | |
| duration | No | Exact validity in days (optional filter) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| plans | No | |
| total | No | |
| currency | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behaviors: China plans with uncensored internet (field), pricing semantics (price_usd vs list_price_usd), and fair usage policy indicator. Complements annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) with actionable details.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose, then adds specific value. Every sentence provides useful context, though could be slightly more concise.
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 complexity (filtering, special China logic, pricing nuances) and existence of output schema, description fully equips agent with necessary context for correct invocation.
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 descriptions cover 3 of 4 parameters (75%), but description adds no extra parameter guidance beyond what schema provides. Baseline score applies.
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?
Clear verb 'Search' and resource 'travel eSIM plans' for 200+ countries. Distinct from sibling tools like get_plan_details (single plan) and create_checkout_link (purchase).
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?
States when to use (searching plans, especially China ones) and highlights special cases, but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives or exclude scenarios.
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!