Got Cosy
Server Details
Travel/hotel data: 6,300 hotels scored for cosiness from guest reviews; verified booking links.
- 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 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for hotels with filters, the other retrieves detailed information for a specific hotel. No overlap.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: 'find_cosy_hotels' and 'get_hotel_feeling'.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for its apparent scope. While focused, it could benefit from additional tools (e.g., listing all locations). Falls into the 'borderline' range.
The tools cover the essential CRUD-like operations for a read-only cosy hotel index: search with filters and retrieve detailed info. No obvious gaps remain for the intended use case.
Available Tools
2 toolsfind_cosy_hotelsAInspect
Find live, cosy-scored hotels from Got Cosy's cosiness index (gotcosy.com): hotels scored 0-10 for warmth, intimacy and character from photos and reviews. Only returns hotels that clear the public floor (score 5.0+). Optionally filter by city, country and a minimum cosy score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City name, e.g. "Paris" | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 100) | |
| country | No | Country name, e.g. "France" | |
| min_score | No | Minimum cosy score 0-10 (the public floor is 5.0 regardless of this value) |
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 burden. It discloses that only hotels with score 5.0+ are returned (public floor) and that the min_score parameter does not override this floor, which is critical behavioral detail.
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 efficiently convey purpose, data source, scoring range, filtering, and a key behavioral nuance (public floor). No wasted words and front-loaded with essential 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 complexity (four optional parameters, no required ones) and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context: source, scoring, filtering behavior, and return criteria. It gives the agent a clear understanding of expected inputs and outputs.
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 for all four parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that the public floor of 5.0 applies regardless of min_score, preventing misinterpretation.
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: finding cosy-scored hotels from Got Cosy's index, with scoring and filtering options. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_hotel_feeling' by focusing on listing multiple hotels.
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 usage for finding cosy hotels with optional filters. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives beyond naming a sibling, the context is clear for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_hotel_feelingAInspect
Get one hotel's cosy score, evidence signals and description from Got Cosy, by its slug (as returned in find_cosy_hotels' results, or from a gotcosy.com/en/hotels/ URL). Below-floor hotels return {below_bar:true} with no score exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The hotel's Got Cosy slug |
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 burden. It discloses return values (cosy score, evidence signals, description) and an edge case (below-floor returns {below_bar:true}), but does not mention authentication, error handling, or rate limits. For a simple read operation it is adequate but not fully transparent.
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: one for the main function and one for the edge case. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and edge case. It is mostly complete, though missing details on error responses.
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 schema describes the slug parameter with 100% coverage, and the description adds value by explaining how to obtain the slug (from find_cosy_hotels or URL), providing context 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 retrieves a hotel's cosy score, evidence signals, and description using a slug. It distinguishes from the sibling find_cosy_hotels by specifying the source of the slug.
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 that the slug comes from find_cosy_hotels results or a URL, and includes an edge case for below-floor hotels. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
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!