TravelType
Server Details
Search and explore a global travel points-of-interest catalog (cities, countries, POIs).
- 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 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: find similar POIs, get city/country/POI details, list cities/countries, and search POIs. No overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscore_case (e.g., find_similar_pois, get_city, list_cities).
Seven tools is well-scoped for a travel POI server, covering essential operations without being excessive or insufficient.
Core CRUD-like operations are covered (list, get, search, find similar). Minor gaps like listing all POIs for a city without free text are mitigated by search_pois with city parameter.
Available Tools
7 toolsfind_similar_poisFind similar POIsARead-onlyInspect
Find the nearest POIs to the given one by tag-cosine similarity (shared distinctive tags) — 'more like this'. Empty when the POI has only generic tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | POI UUID or slug. | |
| lang | No | Language for human-readable name/description fields. EN is canonical. | en |
| limit | No | Maximum number of similar POIs to return (1-30). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| pois | Yes | |
| count | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds algorithm details (cosine similarity, generic tags case) without contradicting annotations, providing full behavioral context.
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, no fluff, front-loaded with main verb and resource. 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?
Given enough context: schema covers parameters, output schema exists, annotations provide safety info, and description explains the core logic and edge case. No gaps.
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?
Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds algorithmic context ('nearest', 'cosine similarity') that enhances meaning beyond schema, though no parameter-specific detail is added.
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 action ('find'), resource ('nearest POIs'), and method ('tag-cosine similarity'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on similarity retrieval, not basic details or lists.
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 indicates when to use ('more like this') and a condition for empty results, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives like search_pois.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_cityGet city detailsARead-onlyInspect
Get one city by slug, including POI count, top distinctive tags, top categories, and a sample of its top POIs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language for human-readable name/description fields. EN is canonical. | en |
| slug | Yes | City slug, e.g. 'berlin'. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | |
| lng | Yes | |
| name | Yes | |
| slug | Yes | |
| name_en | No | |
| top_tags | No | |
| poi_count | Yes | |
| sample_pois | No | |
| country_iso2 | Yes | |
| wikidata_qid | No | |
| top_categories | No |
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 concrete behavioral details about the response contents (POI count, top tags, categories, sample POIs), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention any edge cases or potential omissions.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core function and return details. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description sufficiently covers input requirements and outlines key response components. Sibling tools are listed, providing contextual completeness for an agent to decide when to use this tool.
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 3 applies. The description adds minimal value by stating 'by slug' which confirms the slug parameter's role, but it does not elaborate on the lang parameter or provide constraints 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?
The description clearly states it retrieves a single city by slug, listing specific included data (POI count, tags, categories, sample POIs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cities (returns multiple cities) and get_country (different entity).
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 implies use when a specific city slug is known, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like list_cities to obtain slugs. The context is adequate but not proactive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_countryGet country detailsARead-onlyInspect
Get one country by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, including its active cities (top 100 by POI count).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iso2 | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, e.g. 'DE'. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| iso2 | Yes | |
| cities | No | |
| name_de | Yes | |
| name_en | Yes | |
| poi_count | Yes | |
| city_count | Yes | |
| name_local | No | |
| wikidata_qid | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint) and open world (openWorldHint). The description adds the detail about returning the top 100 cities by POI count, which is useful context but not a significant behavioral disclosure 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?
Single sentence, 18 words, front-loaded with the key action, 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers functionality, input, and output scope.
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%, and the description essentially restates the parameter purpose ('Get one country by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code') without adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema's description.
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 retrieves one country by ISO code and includes its top 100 active cities by POI count, distinguishing it from list_countries and list_cities.
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 implies when to use (needing a specific country's details with top cities) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like list_countries for purely listing country names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_poi_detailsGet POI detailsARead-onlyInspect
Get one POI by UUID or slug, with full enrichment: coordinates, approved tags, categories, Wikidata/OSM/Google identifiers, and hero image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | POI UUID or slug. | |
| lang | No | Language for human-readable name/description fields. EN is canonical. | en |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| lat | Yes | |
| lng | Yes | |
| url | Yes | |
| name | Yes | |
| slug | Yes | |
| tags | Yes | |
| osm_id | No | |
| city_slug | No | |
| image_url | No | |
| categories | No | |
| description | No | |
| country_iso2 | No | |
| image_source | No | |
| wikidata_qid | No | |
| google_place_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world hints; the description adds value by detailing what enrichments are returned (coordinates, tags, identifiers, hero image). No contradictions or missing side-effect information.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element (verb, resource, identifier types, enrichments) is included concisely.
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 2-parameter schema, presence of output schema, and comprehensive listing of return fields, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke this tool correctly.
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 the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The note that 'EN is canonical' for lang adds slight value.
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 action (Get), resource (POI), identifiers (UUID or slug), and specific enrichments (coordinates, tags, etc.). It is distinct from siblings like search_pois (searching) and find_similar_pois (finding similar).
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 implies usage when a specific POI UUID or slug is known, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. However, the context of 'Get one POI by UUID or slug' sufficiently guides when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_citiesList citiesARead-onlyInspect
List active cities ordered by POI count, with coordinates and Wikidata QID. Paginate with limit/offset; filter by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of cities to return (1-100). | |
| offset | No | Number of cities to skip, for pagination. | |
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code filter, e.g. 'DE'. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | |
| total | Yes | |
| cities | Yes | |
| offset | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, setting safe read expectations. The description adds useful specifics: ordering by POI count, including coordinates and QID. No contradictions.
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-constructed sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs all essential information with no redundancy.
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 presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers purpose, parameters, and ordering. The openWorldHint implies the result set may vary, which is fine.
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 reinforces pagination and filtering but doesn't add new semantics 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 lists active cities ordered by POI count, with coordinates and Wikidata QID. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like get_city (single city) and list_countries (country list).
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 good context on when to use (list with pagination and country filter) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or recommend alternatives. The sibling list helps, but description could be more explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_countriesList countriesARead-onlyInspect
List every country that has at least one active city, with city and POI counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| countries | Yes |
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 that it filters to only active cities and includes counts, providing additional behavioral context 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?
A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No extraneous words; every part is informative.
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 0 parameters, annotations, an output schema, and sibling tools, the description fully specifies what the tool does and what it returns. No gaps.
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?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to add param info. It meaningfully describes the output content, adding value over 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'every country that has at least one active city, with city and POI counts'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_country' (single country) and 'list_cities' (cities).
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 implies use for getting a broad overview of countries with active data and counts. While no explicit when-not-to-use, siblings like 'get_country' provide alternatives. Contextually clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_poisSearch points of interestARead-onlyInspect
Free-text POI search with prefix/tag/fuzzy ranking plus popularity and geo boosts. Provide q (free text, min 2 chars) and/or city (slug); with both, the search is scoped to that city. Optionally narrow with tags (a POI must carry all of them). At least one of q or city is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free-text query (min 2 chars). | |
| city | No | Restrict to a city slug. | |
| lang | No | Language for human-readable name/description fields. EN is canonical. | en |
| tags | No | Tag slugs; a POI must carry all of them. | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of POIs to return (1-50). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| pois | Yes | |
| count | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses fuzzy ranking, popularity and geo boosts, and city scoping. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds useful context without contradiction. Rate limits or detailed output behavior not covered, but output schema exists.
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?
Description is three sentences, front-loaded with summary, uses code formatting. Every sentence is informative, no redundancy.
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 5 parameters, complete schema descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description fully explains required conditions, scoping, and optional narrowing. No critical gaps.
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%, but description adds value: explains q min 2 chars, city slug, tags all required, and the interplay between q and city (at least one required). This goes beyond simple schema descriptions.
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 specifies the resource (POIs) and action (search with free-text, prefix/tag/fuzzy ranking, popularity/geo boosts). It distinguishes from sibling 'find_similar_pois' by focusing on free-text search rather than similarity.
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?
Explicit guidance on when to use: requires q or city (or both), optionally tags. Scoping with city is explained. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparison to siblings like 'find_similar_pois'.
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!