Search, recommend & buy travel eSIM data plans for 190+ destinations via AI agents.
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 3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: listing destinations, searching plans, recommending plans, getting a single plan, and creating a checkout link. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: create_checkout_link, get_plan, list_destinations, recommend_plan, search_plans.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for plan discovery and checkout initiation. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers the full workflow from discovery to checkout creation. Minor gap: no direct plan purchase tool, but the checkout link redirects to the external site.
create_checkout_linkCreate an attributed checkout linkCInspectReturn a Simsima product URL with agent attribution, for the user to complete checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | No | ||
| locale | No | en | |
| agentSource | Yes | ||
| destination | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that a URL is returned, but does not mention any side effects, creation of state, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The name suggests creation, but the description omits any creation semantics.
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, which is concise but too brief given the complexity of the tool (4 parameters, no schema descriptions). It front-loads the purpose but omits necessary details about parameters and behavior, making it under-specified for effective use.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the function of the parameters, the format of the returned URL, or any behavioral implications. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.
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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description adds no information about the four parameters (sku, locale, agentSource, destination). It does not explain their meaning, usage, or how they affect the output, leaving the agent with no guidance.
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 that the tool returns a Simsima product URL with agent attribution for checkout. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('product URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with plans and destinations.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or which scenarios require this tool. The description is purely functional with no contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_planGet eSIM plan detailBInspectGet a single plan by its sku.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | ||
| locale | No | en |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While it indicates a read operation ('Get'), it does not disclose any behavioral details such as not-found handling, response format, or idempotency. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.
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, front-loaded with the verb. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing useful context.
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?
Without output schema or annotations, the description should provide more detail on return values, errors, and behavior. The current text is insufficient for a tool with two parameters and sibling tools.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies 'sku' as the identifier, but fails to mention the 'locale' parameter, leaving its purpose unexplained.
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'), the resource ('a single plan'), and the identifier ('by its sku'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like search_plans (multi-criteria lookup) and list_destinations.
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 you have a specific SKU, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs search_plans or recommend_plan. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_destinationsList eSIM destinationsBInspectList destinations (countries) Simsima covers, with min price and product URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | en |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the output includes min price and URL, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or any behavioral nuances.
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, efficient sentence. It could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness, but it is not verbose.
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 simple nature of the tool (1 optional locale parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify if results are paginated, sorted, or how locale modifies the output. The parameter explanation is missing entirely.
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 0%, and the description completely omits the 'locale' parameter. It provides no explanation of how the parameter affects results, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 destinations (countries) with min price and product URL, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_plans or recommend_plan.
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 by stating what it does, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recommend_planRecommend an eSIM planCInspectRecommend the best plan(s) for a trip given its length and data usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| usage | Yes | ||
| locale | No | en | |
| tripDays | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose what 'best' means, side effects, auth needs, or error handling. The lack of behavioral context is significant.
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, 13 words, front-loaded with action. Every word earns its place; no 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?
Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the recommendation logic. Missing mention of destination is a notable gap.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description only mentions tripDays and usage, ignoring the required destination and optional locale. It adds partial meaning but misses critical parameter semantics.
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 recommends plans based on trip length and data usage, and distinguishes it from siblings like search_plans by focusing on 'best' plans. However, it omits the required destination parameter, reducing clarity slightly.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_plans or get_plan. No exclusions or usage context provided; the description only states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_plansSearch eSIM plansCInspectSearch plans for a destination (country name or slug), with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | en | |
| maxPrice | No | ||
| minDataGB | No | ||
| unlimited | No | ||
| destination | Yes | ||
| maxValidityDays | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, or error handling. Lacks context beyond basic function.
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, no waste. However, it is overly terse for a tool with 6 parameters; front-loads purpose but omits crucial parameter details.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. Does not explain filter capabilities, result set characteristics, or usage constraints.
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 has 6 parameters (0% coverage in description). Description only says 'optional filters' without naming or explaining any parameter. Fails to add meaning 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?
Description states exact action: 'Search plans for a destination (country name or slug), with optional filters.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_plan (single plan) and recommend_plan (recommendation).
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?
Implies usage for searching plans by destination with filters, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like recommend_plan or get_plan. 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.
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!