Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

trips_create

POST /trips — Create a trip

Create a new trip. Provide exactly one of placeID or eventID — the server resolves the location (city, country, country code) automatically. Use GET /places/search to find a placeID by city/country name first, or pass an eventID from /events to create a trip to that event's city.

Trip points (optional points array, up to 20 per trip): each item is { note: string (max 280 chars), noteHTML?: string, placeID?: string }. The optional placeID is resolved against Google Places at write time and the full Place object (city, country, lat/lon, name, etc.) is stored on the trip — so reads don't do any lookups. noteHTML preserves the same rich text field the web trip editor stores for formatted notes, links, and mentions; note remains the required plain-text fallback. Notes without a placeID are valid ("remember to book a coworking space"). Pass an unknown / expired Google placeID → 400 with a clear error.

⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoTrip note
pointsNoOptional. Up to 20 trip points (venues / ideas / notes). Each item: `{ note: string (max 280 chars), noteHTML?: string, placeID?: string }`. The optional `placeID` is resolved against Google Places at write time. Notes without a place are valid.
endDateYesEnd date (ISO 8601)
eventIDNoDC event ID. Server uses the event's city placeID. **Pass exactly one of `placeID` or `eventID`** — sending both rejects with 400.
placeIDNoGoogle Place ID for the destination. Look one up via `GET /places/search`. **Pass exactly one of `placeID` or `eventID`** — sending both rejects with 400.
startDateYesStart date (ISO 8601)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states it's a WRITE operation that mutates data, explains error behavior for unknown/expired placeID (400), and details the resolution of placeID at write time. However, it does not mention idempotency or potential side effects of multiple calls.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main action and uses clear sectioning. It is relatively long but every sentence adds necessary context. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (6 params, 2 required, nested points array), the description thoroughly covers input behavior and constraints. However, no output schema is provided and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., the created trip object). This is a notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: mutual exclusivity of placeID/eventID, resolution behavior, points structure with noteHTML vs note, and error handling. This helps the agent understand parameter interactions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'POST /trips — Create a trip' and explains it creates a new trip. It distinguishes from sibling tools like trip_update, trip_delete, and trips (list) by specifying the creation action and the need for either placeID or eventID.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Provide exactly one of placeID or eventID', explains how to look up a placeID via GET /places/search, and warns that sending both will reject. It also clarifies the optional nature of points and the constraints (up to 20, note length).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DC Member API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.

Resources