Skip to main content
Glama

DC Member API

by io.github.dynamitecircle

trips_overlaps

GET /trips/overlaps — Find overlapping trips

Find other members whose trips overlap with yours by city + date range. This is a narrow date-window match, NOT the AI-ranked discovery pool. For the full set of DCers you could meet on a trip — including locals in town and AI-written "why you should meet them" summaries — fetch GET /trips/:tripID/discovery (or GET /trips/:tripID, which embeds the same discovery block). The discovery pool is typically 5–10× larger than /trips/overlaps because it includes locals and event attendees in addition to date-overlap visitors, and it carries ranked top-10 picks with AI summaries that this endpoint does not.

Use /trips/overlaps for the simple "who is travelling here at the same time as me" question. Use /trips/:tripID/discovery for "who should I meet on this trip?".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax trips to check (1-20)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses that the tool does NOT provide AI summaries and that the discovery pool is larger. However, it does not mention if the tool is read-only or any side effects. Still, it gives sufficient behavioral context for a simple endpoint.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the comparison with the alternative tool is efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It explains the scope, limitations, and relationship to sibling tools, ensuring an agent can select it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Only one parameter (limit) with 100% schema coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately states 'Find overlapping trips' and specifies it is a narrow date-window match. It clearly distinguishes from the discovery endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use /trips/overlaps for simple overlapping trips and /trips/:tripID/discovery for AI-ranked recommendations. This directly addresses when to use which tool.

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