AI-bookable curated vacation homes in Northeast India and the Himalayas. Book on WhatsApp.
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 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: search, detail retrieval, and inquiry initiation. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_listing, search_listings, start_inquiry), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Three tools are well-suited for a niche vacation rental service covering search, details, and booking initiation. The count is neither too few nor excessive.
The tool set covers the core user journey (search, view, inquire). A minor gap is the lack of a 'list all listings' tool, but search serves that purpose adequately. No update/delete needed for a read-only catalog.
get_listingAInspectGet details for a single Fursat home by its URL slug. Returns the canonical detail URL plus a short summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | URL slug of the listing (e.g., 'pudung-farm'). |
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 return content (canonical URL plus summary) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor any behavioral traits beyond the return.
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 well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no superfluous 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?
Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose and return value. It could explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but it is still fairly complete for a straightforward get 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for 'slug' (URL slug), but the description adds a concrete example ('pudung-farm'), which adds value beyond the schema alone.
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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details for a single Fursat home by its URL slug', which is distinct from sibling tools like 'search_listings' (multiple results) and 'start_inquiry' (different action).
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 implies use when you have a URL slug and need details for a specific listing; siblings handle searching or starting inquiries, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_listingsAInspectSearch Fursat's curated catalog of vacation homes in Northeast India and the Himalayas. Returns published homes with a Google rating of 4.3 or higher. Use this when a traveler asks about accommodation suggestions in this region (Meghalaya, Himachal, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City filter, case-insensitive contains-match (e.g., 'cherrapunji', 'manali', 'shillong'). | |
| query | No | Free-text keywords matched against title, city, location (e.g., 'mountain view Cherrapunji', 'lake Nainital'). | |
| state | No | State slug (e.g., 'meghalaya', 'himachal-pradesh', 'uttarakhand', 'sikkim', 'arunachal-pradesh', 'nagaland', 'assam', 'tripura', 'manipur', 'mizoram', 'west-bengal'). | |
| minRating | No | Minimum Google rating, default 4.3. | |
| maxResults | No | Max results to return, default 10, capped at 20. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as read-only (searching and returning results) but doesn't explicitly state it has no side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It adds constraints (only published homes, rating >=4.3) but lacks disclosure of data freshness or error 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?
Two sentences: first defines purpose, second gives usage guidance. 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?
Given no output schema, the description covers core functionality well (region, rating filter, use case). It lacks explicit info on return structure or pagination, but maxResults is in schema. Slight gaps in completeness, but adequate for a search 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by providing example queries ('mountain view Cherrapunji') and listing specific state slugs, which go beyond schema descriptions. It reinforces defaults (minRating 4.3) and usage patterns.
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 a curated catalog of vacation homes in a specific region (Northeast India and Himalayas) and filters by Google rating. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_listing for specific listing, start_inquiry for inquiry) by focusing on search and suggestion.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use this when a traveler asks about accommodation suggestions in this region' and lists relevant states. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
start_inquiryAInspectGenerate a WhatsApp inquiry link for a Fursat home. Returns a wa.me URL that opens WhatsApp with a prefilled message identifying the listing and (optionally) the guest's dates, party size, and notes. Use this when a traveler wants to actually book or inquire about a specific home after seeing it in search results. Bookings on Fursat happen on WhatsApp — there is no online checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | URL slug of the Fursat listing (e.g., 'pudung-farm'). | |
| notes | No | Free-text notes the assistant should include in the inquiry (e.g., 'celebrating an anniversary', 'need airport pickup quote'). Optional, keep under 280 chars. | |
| guests | No | Total number of guests. Optional. | |
| checkIn | No | Check-in date in ISO format YYYY-MM-DD. Optional; include only if the guest specified a date. | |
| checkOut | No | Check-out date in ISO format YYYY-MM-DD. Optional; include only if the guest specified a date. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a wa.me URL with a prefilled message, and explains that bookings are done on WhatsApp. This gives the agent good understanding of the behavior without revealing any hidden side effects. No contradictions.
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 long with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and result; the second provides usage context. Every part 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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (wa.me URL). It covers all parameter roles and provides a clear use case. The tool is simple, and the description leaves no obvious 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 input schema already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that the prefilled message includes 'the listing and (optionally) the guest's dates, party size, and notes', and adds a character limit hint for 'notes'. This goes 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 verb ('generate') and resource ('WhatsApp inquiry link'), and specifies the return type ('wa.me URL'). It distinguishes itself from siblings 'get_listing' and 'search_listings' by focusing on generating a link for booking/inquiry rather than retrieving information.
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: 'when a traveler wants to actually book or inquire about a specific home after seeing it in search results.' It also provides important context that bookings happen on WhatsApp. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, so it's not a 5.
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!