Kids Stay
Server Details
Search Japanese hotels by 48 verified kid-friendly conditions, with sources and dates.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 4.1/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct function: get_hotel for a single hotel's details, list_areas for regional overview, list_conditions for searchable criteria, and search_hotels for querying. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_hotel, list_areas). Although 'get_hotel' uses singular and others plural, the pattern is uniform and intuitive.
With 4 tools, the set is lean but well-scoped for a specialized hotel search service. It covers all core operations without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: exploring areas and conditions, searching with filters, and retrieving hotel details. Minor gaps like user reviews are outside the stated domain.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_hotel施設の検証済み詳細AInspect
slug指定で施設の全条件（施設別の根拠note付き）・キッズ設備・アクセス・出典・検証日を返します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 施設slug（search_hotelsの結果に含まれる） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the return content comprehensively (conditions with notes, kids facilities, access, sources, verification date). No side effects are indicated, but it is a read operation.
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, information-dense sentence that enumerates all return categories without waste. It is concise and well-structured.
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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned, covering multiple aspects. No gaps are present.
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 covers 100% of parameters, already explaining the slug parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 all conditions, kids facilities, access, sources, and verification date for a facility specified by slug. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like search_hotels or list_areas.
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 usage when a slug from search_hotels is available and detailed verified info is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_areasエリア別の在庫AInspect
都道府県別の施設数・主要エリアと、編集部のエリア特集ページ一覧を返します。検索前の当たり付けに使います。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states what is returned, not behavioral traits like read-only or idempotency. As a read-only list with no parameters, transparency is adequate but could explicitly state it is non-destructive.
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 specifies output, second states use case. No wasted words. Front-loaded with primary content.
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 parameters or output schema, description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. Nothing critical missing.
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. Schema coverage is 100% vacuous. Description adds value by explaining the pre-search context, meeting baseline for zero-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?
Description explicitly states it returns facility counts by prefecture, main areas, and editorial feature pages. Verb '返します' (returns) is clear. Distinct from sibling tools like search_hotels which search for hotels, not areas.
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?
States '検索前の当たり付けに使います' (used for targeting before searching), implying use before search_hotels. Does not explicitly exclude other contexts but provides clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_conditions48条件の定義一覧AInspect
検索に使える子連れ条件の全定義（id・ラベル・対象年齢・該当施設数）を返します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 states the tool 'returns' definitions, implying a read-only action, but does not explicitly disclose safety (no side effects) or any prerequisites. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.
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 that conveys essential information efficiently. No redundant or filler content.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (id, label, target age, number of facilities) and states it returns the full list. This is sufficient for a simple read-only 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, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it doesn't. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds no value beyond schema but also doesn't need to.
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 returns all definitions of child-friendly conditions (id, label, target age, number of facilities) that can be used for search. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hotel, list_areas, and search_hotels, which serve different purposes.
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 the tool is for retrieving condition definitions to be used as search filters. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools is clear enough that an AI agent would understand its role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_hotels子連れ条件×エリアで宿を検索AInspect
赤ちゃん・子連れ向け設備の検証済み条件（48種・list_conditions参照）とエリア・子どもの年齢・価格で日本の宿を検索します。結果の page URL が施設の詳細・予約ページです。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | エリア名。例: "箱根" "沖縄本島" | |
| sort | No | 並び順。既定=rating（楽天評価順） | |
| limit | No | 取得件数（既定10・最大20） | |
| child_age | No | 子どもの年齢（歳）。対象年齢に合う宿へ絞り込み | |
| max_price | No | 1名1泊あたり上限額（円・目安） | |
| conditions | No | 条件ID（AND検索）。例: ["baby_bed_rental","bath_pre_potty_ok"] | |
| prefecture | No | 都道府県名またはJISコード。例: "神奈川県" / "14" |
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 search is for verified family-friendly conditions and result includes page URL, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or read-only nature.
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 sentence covers purpose and key parameters; second explains result URL. No filler, clear and front-loaded.
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?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no required params, the description only mentions that result contains a page URL. It lacks details on other return fields, pagination, or error handling, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. Description adds value by stating there are 48 condition types and referencing list_conditions, providing context beyond the schema examples.
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?
Title and description clearly state it searches Japanese hotels by family-friendly conditions, area, child age, and price. Distinguishes from sibling tools: 'get_hotel' gets single hotel, 'list_areas' lists areas, 'list_conditions' lists conditions.
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?
Description implies usage with multiple filters and references list_conditions for condition codes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it.
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!