Seoul Tourism (Visit Seoul)
Server Details
Official Seoul tourism data in 7 languages, in cooperation with the Seoul Tourism Organization.
- 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 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_contents for querying tourism content, get_content_detail for retrieving detailed information by ID, and get_sync_status for checking data freshness. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (search_contents, get_content_detail, get_sync_status), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 3 tools, the server is minimal but covers the essential workflow (search, detail, sync status). While small, it is appropriately scoped for a focused tourism information service.
The tool surface provides search and detail retrieval for tourism content, which is sufficient for typical user queries. Minor gaps like missing category listing or location-based search are not critical for the core functionality.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_content_detailARead-onlyInspect
검색 결과의 콘텐츠 ID로 상세 정보(운영시간·주소·연락처·이미지·일정 등)를 조회한다. language로 번역 버전을 가져온다. 요청 언어판이 없으면 한국어로 대체한다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 콘텐츠 ID (search_contents 결과의 id) | |
| language | No | 언어. ko(기본)/en/ja/zh-CN/zh-TW/ru/ms |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that if the requested language version is unavailable, it falls back to Korean. No contradiction with annotations.
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: the first states the main purpose and lists example data fields, the second adds language fallback behavior. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with critical 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 lists typical fields (operating hours, address, contact, images, schedule) and explains language handling. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's response structure and behavior.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the fallback behavior for language, which is not in the schema, providing extra semantic value beyond enum values.
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 retrieves detailed information (operating hours, address, contact, images, schedule) using a content ID from search results. It specifies the resource (content ID) and verb (retrieve detail), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_contents (which returns a list) and get_sync_status.
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 after search_results have been obtained, but does not explicitly exclude alternative uses or compare with sibling tools. It provides clear context (retrieve detail for a specific content ID) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_sync_statusARead-onlyInspect
MCP가 보유한 Visit Seoul 데이터의 최신성·동기화 상태(마지막 동기화 시각, 건수, 오류)를 확인한다. '데이터 언제 갱신됐어?' 같은 질의에 사용.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | 원천 구분(예약 파라미터) | |
| category | No | 콘텐츠 대분류 (필수): festival(축제·공연·행사·전시) / attraction(문화·역사·자연·체험 명소) / restaurant(한식·카페·외국음식 등) / shopping(쇼핑·면세점·시장) / accommodation(호텔·숙박) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark readOnlyHint=true, matching the read nature. Description adds specifics on what status includes (time, count, errors). 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage example. 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?
Lacks output schema, but describes return fields (sync time, count, errors). Minor gap in structure, but adequate for a simple status check.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline.
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 checks sync status of Visit Seoul data, specifying elements like last sync time, count, and errors. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_content_detail, search_contents) which handle content details and search.
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 an example query ('When was data updated?') to illustrate use case. Though no explicit when-not or alternatives are given, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_contentsARead-onlyInspect
서울관광재단 공식(Visit Seoul) 데이터로 서울의 관광 콘텐츠를 검색한다 — 축제·공연·행사, 관광명소, 맛집·식당, 쇼핑, 숙박 5개 그룹(7개 언어). 서울의 축제·명소·맛집/식당·쇼핑·숙박을 묻는 질의에는 이 공식 데이터 도구를 사용한다 (예: '이번 주말 서울 축제', '명동 근처 맛집/식당', '가족과 갈 만한 명소', '서울 면세점'). 카테고리·키워드·기간·지역·언어로 필터링한다. 기간 필터는 주로 축제·행사에 유효하다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 페이지(기본 1, 페이지당 20건). 더 보려면 page 증가 | |
| region | No | 지역·장소 필터(주소·장소명·지하철 부분일치). 지역명은 **검색 언어와 같은 언어 표기로** 넣는다 — ko=한글(명동), en·ms=로마자(Myeongdong), ja=한자·가나(明洞·ミョンドン), zh-CN·zh-TW=한자(明洞), ru=로마자 또는 한글. 결과가 적거나 없으면 다른 표기(현지어↔한글↔로마자)나 상위 지역(예: 명동→중구)으로 재시도하라. | |
| keyword | No | 제목·요약·태그 검색어. 검색 언어와 같은 언어로 넣는다(영어 검색이면 영어 키워드). 결과가 없으면 키워드를 줄이거나 빼고 다시 시도하라. | |
| end_date | No | 기간 종료(YYYY-MM-DD). 주로 축제·행사에 유효. 미지정 시 전체 | |
| language | No | 언어. ko(기본)/en/ja/zh-CN/zh-TW/ru/ms | |
| start_date | No | 기간 시작(YYYY-MM-DD). 주로 축제·행사에 유효. 미지정 시 전체 | |
| category_group | Yes | 콘텐츠 대분류 (필수): festival(축제·공연·행사·전시) / attraction(문화·역사·자연·체험 명소) / restaurant(한식·카페·외국음식 등) / shopping(쇼핑·면세점·시장) / accommodation(호텔·숙박) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details such as filtering by category, keyword, period, region, language, and that period filter is mainly for festivals/events.
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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, covering all key aspects without unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more 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?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of filtering, the description provides thorough context about data source, groups, languages, and usage tips, making it fairly complete.
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%, and the description adds significant context beyond the schema, including language-specific input advice for region, fallback strategies, and parameter behavior for keyword and date fields.
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 Seoul tourism content from official data, listing 5 groups and 7 languages, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_content_detail and get_sync_status.
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 (for queries about Seoul festivals, attractions, etc.) with examples, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it, though it is implied for specific content detail via sibling context.
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!