Search and explore a global travel points-of-interest catalog (cities, countries, POIs).
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.
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.
find_similar_poisFind similar POIsAFind 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). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| pois | Yes | |
| count | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the similarity algorithm (tag-cosine) and the condition for empty results, enhancing beyond annotations without 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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the core action and then an edge case. 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 query tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, a full output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, method, and a critical edge case. No gaps remain.
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 the description need not add param details. It mentions 'nearest' and 'shared distinctive tags', which aligns with parameters but adds no new semantics 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 the verb 'Find', the resource 'nearest POIs', and the method 'tag-cosine similarity'. The phrase 'more like this' confirms intent. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_pois' and 'get_poi_details'.
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 (find similar POIs) and a key edge case (empty for generic tags). It does not list when not to use, but the sibling context provides implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_cityGet city detailsAGet 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'. |
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds value by specifying returned data (POI count, tags, categories, sample POIs), aligning with open world hint. 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 sentence (21 words), front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundant information.
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 good annotations and output schema, description adequately covers main purpose and return data. Lacks details on error cases or prerequisites (e.g., slug existence), but fairly complete for a lookup 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%; both parameters documented. Description does not add extra semantics beyond schema (e.g., no mention of lang parameter constraints or defaults). Baseline score of 3 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 'Get' with specific resource 'city by slug'. Distinguishes from siblings like list_cities (multiple cities) and get_country (different entity). Includes specific data returned (POI count, tags, categories, sample POIs).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Use case is implied (need single city details), but no mention of when to use list_cities instead or when not to use this tool. Siblings exist but description lacks usage notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_countryGet country detailsAGet 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'. |
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnly and openWorld hints. The description adds that it returns the top 100 active cities by POI count, providing useful behavioral 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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose and output. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the action.
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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the key input (ISO code) and output (country with top cities), providing sufficient context for an AI agent.
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 for the single parameter is 100% and already describes the ISO code format. The description repeats this but adds no additional parameter detail, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 active cities. It distinguishes from siblings like list_countries (list all) and get_city (single city).
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 implicitly indicates when to use (when you need a specific country with its top cities) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.
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 detailsAGet 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 |
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds value by specifying that the lang parameter affects human-readable fields and that EN is canonical, providing useful behavioral 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource, lists specific enrichment fields without redundancy. Every word 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?
Given the presence of annotations and output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It explains what is returned and the role of the lang parameter, leaving no critical gaps for a simple retrieval 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?
Both parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by clarifying 'id' accepts UUID or slug and 'lang' affects 'human-readable name/description fields' with 'EN is canonical', which compensates for lack of deeper schema detail.
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 clearly states verb ('Get'), resource ('POI'), identifier used ('UUID or slug'), and lists the enriched fields returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_pois and get_city/get_country due to the single-item retrieval and specific enrichment details.
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?
Description implies use when needing full details for one POI but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like find_similar_pois or search_pois. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_citiesList citiesAList 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'. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | |
| total | Yes | |
| cities | Yes | |
| offset | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (results may change). The description adds behavioral details such as ordering by POI count and inclusion of coordinates and QID, which go 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?
Two sentences: first explains the action and output, second covers parameters. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information. 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?
Given the output schema exists (mentioned but not shown), the description covers essential aspects: what is returned (coordinates, QID), how to paginate and filter. It is complete for a simple read-only list tool, though it could mention edge cases like no results.
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 context for parameters (pagination, filtering) and specifies that results are ordered by POI count, which is not in the schema. This adds meaningful 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 verb 'list', the resource 'active cities', the ordering by POI count, and the included data (coordinates and Wikidata QID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_city (single city) or list_countries.
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 explains pagination with limit/offset and filtering by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context is clear and the sibling tools cover different use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_countriesList countriesAList every country that has at least one active city, with city and POI counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| countries | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the filtering condition and return of city/POI counts, which goes beyond what annotations provide. 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?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the essential information. Every word adds value—no redundancies or fluff.
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 no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is fully complete for an agent to decide. It explains what is listed and the conditions.
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 schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter details. Per guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4, which is appropriate.
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 'countries' with a specific condition (at least one active city) and additional data (city and POI counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools 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 provides clear context: it lists countries with active cities and includes counts. It implies usage for aggregated overview, though it lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool mentions. The sibling list makes differentiation possible.
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 interestAFree-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). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| pois | Yes | |
| count | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details about ranking algorithm, parameter requirements (min 2 chars for q, at least one of q or city), and scoping behavior, complementing the annotations without 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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and capabilities, second explains parameter requirements. Front-loaded with the main action.
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 output schema exists, description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers essential behavior: free-text search with boosts, scoping, tag filtering, and parameter requirements. Minor omission of pagination details but acceptable for a search 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 is 3. The description adds context about how parameters interact (e.g., scoping to city when both q and city provided) and the ranking behavior, which goes beyond the raw 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 states 'Free-text POI search' with specific verb and resource, and lists capabilities like prefix/tag/fuzzy ranking and geo boosts, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as find_similar_pois or get_poi_details.
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 this tool (free-text search with optional city and tags) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!