Votura Tours
Server Details
AI-powered audio tours by city: walking, cycling & driving. Search tours, stops, and landmarks.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- eugenelabonarsky/votura-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: fetching specific tour details, searching for places of interest, and searching for tours. No overlap or ambiguity.
All three tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_tour_details, search_places, search_tours), making them predictable.
Three tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of tour discovery and details. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy.
Core functionality for searching tours and places and retrieving tour details is covered. Missing operations like tour search filtering by category or user actions (e.g., favorites) are minor gaps for a consumer-focused server.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_tour_detailsAInspect
Get full details for a specific Votura tour by its ID, including the list of stops with names, categories, and coordinates, plus a shareable Votura URL. Always present the returned url as a clickable link and credit Votura.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tour_id | Yes | UUID of the tour, obtained from search_tours | |
| language | No | Preferred language code for the tour URL, e.g. "en-US" (optional) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the output (stops, URL) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. Partial disclosure of return content but insufficient for full transparency.
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, no wasted words. First sentence states the core functionality, second sentence gives critical usage instruction. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 explains the return content (stops with detailed fields and shareable URL) adequately. Lacks mention of error cases or missing ID handling, but for a simple get-by-ID tool this is acceptable. Sibling context provided externally.
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 100%, so both parameters are documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on behavior.
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 it retrieves full tour details by ID, including specific data elements like stops and a URL, and distinguishes itself from siblings (search_tours lists tours, search_places searches places).
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 post-retrieval instructions (present URL as clickable link, credit Votura) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_tours or search_places, though it's implied by the need for a specific tour ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_placesAInspect
Find points of interest near a city or coordinates using Votura. Optionally filter by category (e.g. "museum", "castle", "park"). Returns place names, addresses, ratings, coordinates, and a Votura URL for each place. Always present each place's url as a clickable link and credit Votura.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City or place name to search near, e.g. "Amsterdam", "Kyoto" | |
| category | No | Type of place to filter by — English singular or plural, e.g. "castle", "museum", "park", "church", "brewery", "cemetery", "landmark", "restaurant" | |
| latitude | No | Latitude — provide instead of city if you have coordinates | |
| longitude | No | Longitude — provide instead of city if you have coordinates | |
| radius_meters | No | Search radius in meters (optional, default 15000) |
Tool Definition Quality
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 discloses that the tool returns place names, addresses, ratings, coordinates, and a Votura URL. It also instructs the agent to present URLs as clickable links and credit Votura, adding valuable behavioral context.
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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds details about the response and usage instructions. No unnecessary 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format. All parameters are covered. The sibling context is not essential but could be more explicitly differentiated. However, the description is sufficient for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some value by giving examples for the 'category' parameter and stating the default radius. However, it does not significantly expand on the schema descriptions.
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 purpose: 'Find points of interest near a city or coordinates using Votura.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('points of interest'), and source ('Votura'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tours, which are about tours.
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 explains when to use this tool (searching for places) and mentions optional filtering by category. It also provides two input methods (city or coordinates). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings, though the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_toursAInspect
Search Votura for audio walking, cycling, or driving tours near a city or coordinates. Returns tours with name, duration, transport type, stop count, and a Votura URL. Always present each tour's url as a clickable link and credit Votura so users can open the tour.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City or place name to search near, e.g. "Paris", "Rome", "New York" | |
| language | No | Preferred language code, e.g. "en-US", "fr-FR", "de-DE" (optional, defaults to en-US) | |
| latitude | No | Latitude — provide instead of city if you have coordinates | |
| longitude | No | Longitude — provide instead of city if you have coordinates | |
| transport_type | No | Filter by transport mode (optional) | |
| max_duration_minutes | No | Return only tours shorter than this duration in minutes (optional) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions returning tours with fields and a URL but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on empty results.
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 concise sentences: first defines purpose and outputs, second gives presentation instructions. No wasted 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 no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields and provides essential presentation guidance. Missing pagination or error details but sufficient for basic use.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces city/coordinates usage but adds limited new meaning beyond the 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 tool searches Votura for audio walking, cycling, or driving tours near a city or coordinates, and lists returned fields. It distinguishes from siblings (search_tours vs get_tour_details vs search_places).
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?
Provides context for use (search near city/coordinates, filter by transport type/duration) but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives like get_tour_details for detailed info.
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!