Simsima Connectivity
Server Details
Search, recommend & buy travel eSIM data plans for 190+ destinations via AI agents.
- 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 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.
Available Tools
5 toolscreate_checkout_linkCreate an attributed checkout linkCInspect
Return 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'agent attribution' implying tracking but does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects (e.g., creating a tracking record), requires authentication, or is read-only. The agent lacks clarity on what happens beyond returning a URL.
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 of 14 words. It contains no filler or redundancy, efficiently conveying the essential purpose.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, plus 0% parameter coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return value format, side effects, required prerequisites for agentSource, or how to construct a valid link. The agent has insufficient information to invoke the 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no additional meaning for the four parameters. It does not explain the purpose of sku, locale, agentSource, or destination, nor their relationships. The agent must guess parameter usage solely from names and schema types/enums, which is inadequate.
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 returns a Simsima product URL with agent attribution for checkout. It specifies the verb 'return' and the resource 'Simsima product URL', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_plan or recommend_plan that serve different purposes.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it. This forces the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name and purpose.
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 detailCInspect
Get a single plan by its sku.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | ||
| locale | No | en |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states basic retrieval. It does not disclose response format, side effects (none expected), permissions, or rate limits.
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—concise but overly terse. It could include more detail without becoming 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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what details are returned, error handling, or constraints beyond sku identification.
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%, yet the description only mentions sku implicitly and provides no explanation for the locale parameter or its enum values.
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 'Get a single plan by its sku' clearly states the action (Get), resource (single plan), and unique identifier (sku), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_plans.
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 (e.g., search_plans for unknown plans). The description lacks context about 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 destinationsBInspect
List destinations (countries) Simsima covers, with min price and product URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | en |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions return fields (destinations, min price, product URL) but omits whether operation is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects.
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 is efficient and front-loaded with key info. Could benefit from slight expansion on parameter or usage, but no superfluous content.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers return format adequately. Lacks info on ordering, pagination, or locale impact, but minimally complete.
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 does not explain the lone parameter 'locale' beyond what the schema provides (enum values and default). Adds no semantic 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 tool lists destinations (countries) covered by Simsima, including minimum price and product URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle checkout, plan details, recommendations, or searches.
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 instructions on when to use vs alternatives. However, the purpose is straightforward, and siblings perform distinct actions, so usage is implied but not guided.
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 planCInspect
Recommend 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must bear full burden. It mentions recommending 'the best plan(s)' but does not clarify how 'best' is determined, whether it returns multiple plans, or its read-only nature. The behavior around output format or potential side effects is missing.
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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informativeness; it could briefly mention parameters or behavior without becoming 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and missing annotations, the description is too brief. It does not cover return values, the role of the 'locale' parameter, or how destinations are matched. Essential context for an AI agent to use correctly is absent.
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%, yet the description does not mention any parameter names, types, or constraints. It vaguely refers to 'length and data usage' but omits the required 'destination' parameter and optional 'locale'. The description adds no value beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb 'Recommend' and clearly states the resource 'best plan(s)' and the inputs 'trip length and data usage'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_plan' (single plan) and 'search_plans' (search vs 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?
The description implies usage for recommendations based on trip parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_plans' or 'get_plan'. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_plansSearch eSIM plansBInspect
Search 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the core function without disclosing side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, pagination, sorting, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. This is minimal transparency for a search tool.
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 with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it could add brief parameter details without sacrificing conciseness.
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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how filters interact, the return format, ordering, pagination, or error handling. A search tool requires richer context for agent to use effectively.
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 mentions 'destination' (country name or slug) and groups all other parameters as 'optional filters', but it does not explain the meaning or constraints of individual parameters like maxPrice, minDataGB, unlimited, maxValidityDays, or locale. With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more semantic detail for each parameter.
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 'Search' and resource 'plans', specifies the key parameter 'destination (country name or slug)', and mentions optional filters. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'get_plan', 'list_destinations', and 'recommend_plan' by focusing on search with filters.
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 for searching plans by destination with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks guidance on when to apply specific filters or when to prefer other sibling tools.
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!