search_plansSearch 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear primary purpose, but check_coverage and get_destination_info both provide coverage-related information, and recommend_plan/search_plans can overlap in plan selection. Descriptions are detailed enough to guide an agent, though a few boundary cases remain.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_, create_, get_, list_, recommend_, search_. The verbs are distinct and the nouns clearly identify the resource being acted on.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an eSIM connectivity server, covering coverage, destination info, plan discovery, recommendation, and checkout without unnecessary duplication.
The tool set covers coverage checks, destination details, plan search/retrieval, recommendations, and checkout handoff. Minor gaps exist around top-up actions and post-purchase order management, but the core connectivity workflow is well covered.