Pet travel docs + border readiness. Keyless: look up entry rules + sign up. Keyed: household docs.
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 3.6/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of pet travel: rules checking, readiness validation, document listing, pet listing, dashboard overview, session prep, signup, and upcoming trips. No overlap in purpose.
All tools start with 'customs_' prefix and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_rules, list_pets, start_signup), providing a predictable and clear naming convention.
8 tools cover the core workflows for pet border requirements and document management without being excessive. The scope feels well-calibrated for the domain.
The set covers key operations: rule checking, readiness, document listing, and signup. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for adding or updating pets or documents after account creation, but core informational queries are fully covered.
customs_check_rulesAInspectPer-destination pet border-entry requirements — NO account needed. What documents a dog needs to enter a country and re-enter the US. Use this to answer 'what does my pet need to travel to X?' for anyone. Omit destination to list every corridor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| destination | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that no account is needed (public access) and that the tool returns border-entry requirements. It does not mention any destructive behavior or rate limits, which is acceptable for a read-only query. However, it could be more explicit about the return format.
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 extremely concise with three short sentences, each providing essential information. No redundant 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the primary use case, who can use it, and how to vary the query. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it returns a plain text list, but overall it is well-rounded.
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 adds meaning to the single parameter `destination` by explaining that omitting it lists all corridors, and that the tool is per-destination. This goes beyond the schema which only lists enum values. The description coverage is 0% by strict measure, but the text does address the 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 explains the tool's function: retrieving per-destination pet border-entry requirements. It specifies the use case (what documents a dog needs to enter a country and re-enter the US) and distinguishes from siblings by noting that no account is needed and by offering a specific action (omitting destination to list all corridors).
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 the tool ('to answer what does my pet need to travel to X?') and provides an alternative usage pattern ('omit destination to list every corridor'). It implies non-use for account-requiring operations but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like customs_check_trip_readiness, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
customs_check_trip_readinessAInspectCleared / caution / blocked for pet + destination + return_date. NEVER assert clearance without this. (For rules without an account, use customs_check_rules.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pet_id | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes | ||
| return_date | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only hints at a read-only check but does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or authorization requirements. The strong directive focuses on usage rather than behavior.
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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a parenthetical note. It front-loads the key outcome and wastes no words, making it quick to parse.
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 output schema, the description roughly explains the output ('cleared/caution/blocked') but lacks specifics on return format, error conditions, or parameter constraints like date format. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for an 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?
The schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'pet + destination + return_date' but adds no detail about pet_id format, destination enum values, or return_date format. This provides minimal added meaning over the parameter names.
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's function: checking trip readiness status (cleared/caution/blocked) for a given pet, destination, and return date. It distinguishes from sibling tool customs_check_rules by specifying its use case, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 explicit guidance: 'NEVER assert clearance without this' indicates when to use this tool, and 'For rules without an account, use customs_check_rules' offers a clear alternative for a different scenario. This fully addresses when and when-not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
customs_list_documentsCInspectList documents for a pet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pet_id | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of pagination, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral traits are only implicit.
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 extremely concise at five words, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it sacrifices necessary detail.
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 tool has three parameters (including two enums) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, filter options, or any contextual information needed for correct invocation.
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% (no descriptions in the schema), and the tool description adds no explanation of the three parameters or their enums. The agent must infer the meaning of pet_id, status, and category entirely from their names, which is insufficient.
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 'List documents for a pet' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is generic and does not specify what types of documents or any scope. It distinguishes from siblings like custom_list_pets by focusing on documents, but could be more precise.
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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preconditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
customs_list_petsBInspectList the household's pets (source of pet_id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the action and returned element (pet_id) but does not disclose any behavioral traits like whether it returns full objects or just IDs, or any limitations.
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 with no waste. Every word adds value, clearly conveying the tool's action and 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?
Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details like prerequisites, filtering, or whether it returns all pets. It covers the basics but leaves some 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?
No parameters exist, and the input schema is empty. The description adds meaning by specifying the scope 'household's' and the purpose 'source of pet_id', going 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'pets' with context 'household's', and mentions it as source of pet_id, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are about rules, documents, trips, etc.
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 or not use this tool vs alternatives. The mention of 'source of pet_id' implies usage for obtaining pet IDs, but no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
customs_overviewAInspectCounts of pets/documents by status, what's expiring soon, recent household activity, and MCP usage stats (per-tool call counts, public-tier reach, verdict distribution).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by describing returned data, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or require authentication. The disclosure is minimal but not contradictory.
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 that lists all categories, making it concise. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for improved readability.
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?
The description covers the main output categories but lacks specificity (e.g., what statuses, what 'expiring soon' means, details on verdict distribution). Given no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
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?
With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining what the output contains (e.g., counts by status, usage stats). This meets the baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools.
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 counts of pets/documents by status, upcoming expirations, recent household activity, and MCP usage stats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which perform specific actions like checking rules or listing items.
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 this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists output categories, leaving the agent to infer that it's for a high-level overview without stating conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
customs_prepAInspectValidate the session, confirm the pet roster, report health. Call first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the actions but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or what happens upon multiple invocations. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 extremely concise: one sentence with three clear verbs. It is front-loaded with 'Validate the session' and 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It lacks details on return values, state changes, or error conditions. For a simple tool, it is partially complete but leaves ambiguity about 'report health' and the overall effect.
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 tool has no parameters (input schema with no properties), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly avoids mentioning any.
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 lists specific actions: validate session, confirm pet roster, report health, and states 'Call first.' This gives a clear purpose as a preparatory step, but it does not differentiate from siblings like customs_check_trip_readiness, which might have overlapping functionality.
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 phrase 'Call first' implies it should be used before other customs tools, providing a usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
customs_start_signupAInspectStart a FREE customs.dog account for a NEW user by email and send them a magic sign-in link (no password). Use this to onboard someone who wants to store and track their pet's travel documents after you've shown them their border requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: free account, new user only, magic link (no password). However, it omits details like rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the user already 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. No wasted text.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. However, it lacks parameter descriptions and does not mention return values or side effects, leaving minor 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?
The description does not mention the parameters at all, even though schema description coverage is 0%. It only implies 'by email' but does not describe the optional 'name' parameter or provide any formatting hints beyond what the schema regex offers.
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 starts a free account for a NEW user via email, sending a magic sign-in link. It specifies the resource (customs.dog account), action (start signup), and distinguishes from sibling tools like customs_check_rules or customs_list_documents by focusing on onboarding.
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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to onboard someone after you've shown them their border requirements.' It implies not to use for existing users or before requirements are shown, though it could be more explicit about when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
customs_upcoming_tripsAInspectUpcoming trips from the household's connected travel calendar (TripIt/Flighty/Google/Apple), each with per-pet readiness (cleared/caution/blocked). Use to proactively flag paperwork needed before travel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (connected calendars), output structure (trips with per-pet readiness categories), and purpose. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, data freshness, or pagination. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 efficiently convey the output, data source, readiness categories, and intended use. No wasted words; front-loaded with key 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?
For a no-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what trips are included, readiness status, and usage purpose. Minor omissions like sorting or date range are not critical for this simple 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?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 when there are zero parameters.
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 upcoming trips from connected calendars with per-pet readiness statuses (cleared/caution/blocked), and identifies the use case of proactively flagging paperwork. This distinguishes it from siblings like customs_check_trip_readiness (which likely focuses on a single trip) and customs_list_documents.
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 gives a general use case ('proactively flag paperwork needed before travel') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like customs_check_trip_readiness or customs_list_documents. No exclusions 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.
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!