Skip to main content
Glama

GAJA (가자) - Korea Travel & Measured Visits MCP

gaja_recommend_places

Read-onlyIdempotent

한국 시군구 하나에 대해 실제 방문 데이터로 고른 가볼 만한 곳과 하루 단위 코스(오전·점심·오후·저녁·숙소)를 날씨와 근거와 함께 돌려준다. Returns places worth visiting in one Korean district, chosen from measured visits, plus a day-by-day course with weather and the reasons. [auth] 읽기 · 인증 불필요 [output] {'region': 'dict', 'dates': 'dict', 'places': 'list[{name, category, lat, lon, addr, reason}]', 'days': 'list[{day, items:[{time, name, group, category}], legs:[{mode, minutes, km}]}] (legs[i] = items[i]→items[i+1] 이동)', 'weather': 'list[{day, tmin, tmax, pop, rain_flag}]', 'basis': 'str', 'provenance': 'dict', 'places_source': 'list[str]'}

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "region": "<region>"
    },
    "name": "gaja_recommend_places"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo
langNo
regionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds that authentication is not required, that the output carries weather, provenance, and 'basis' reasons, and that legs connect consecutive items in an itinerary. It does not state data freshness or latency, but for a read-only tool it discloses well beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose comes first and the output specification is usefully front-loaded, but the entire prose appears twice in Korean and English, which roughly doubles the length. The inline output dictionary is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape, the authentication requirement, and the weather and reason fields well. It still leaves the meaning of 'days' and 'lang' unexplained, and it says nothing about data freshness or response size.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must carry the meaning of the parameters. It only implicitly clarifies that 'region' is a single Korean district and says nothing about 'days' (the length of the itinerary) or 'lang' (the output language), so two parameters stay ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: for one Korean district it returns visit-worthy places chosen from measured visit data, plus a day-by-day itinerary split into morning, lunch, afternoon, evening, and lodging. The tracked-visits basis and itinerary output distinguish it from a generic recommender such as gaja_recommend_trending_places, but the description never explicitly contrasts the two.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than one of its siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Only an implicit scope constraint is present: exactly one Korean district must be given, and the whole tool is read-only and needs no authentication.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.