Norwegian experiences marketplace MCP: activities by county, category, weather, season, group size.
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a distinct action: searching experiences, searching farm-sale producers, fetching experience details, listing categories, and submitting a booking request. The only same-vertical pair (discover_gardssalg vs book_gardssalg) is clearly separated by search vs booking, and the descriptions reinforce the boundary.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (book_, discover_, get_, list_). The mix of Norwegian 'gardssalg' and English 'experiences' is domain terminology rather than a naming inconsistency.
Five tools is well-scoped for a niche marketplace MCP: two search tools, one detail retriever, one category enumerator, and one booking action. No redundant tools are present.
The main discovery-to-booking-request flow for farm-sale producers is covered, and experience discovery has category, search, and detail coverage. Minor gaps exist: no direct booking for experiences (only an external URL) and no cancel/status tool for booking requests, but the pending-request design deliberately leaves confirmation and cancellation to the producer.
Submit a booking REQUEST for a Norwegian gårdssalg (farm-sale) producer discovered via discover_gardssalg. Send inn en reservasjonsforespørsel for et gårdssalg-besøk. IMPORTANT: this NEVER creates a confirmed booking — it creates a PENDING request, exactly like the producer's own website form. The PRODUCER reviews the request and responds (confirms, proposes another time, or declines); guest_email only receives a read-only status link, never anything that can finalize the booking. No payment is involved (pickup/visit, pay on arrival, as today). Only producers with an active booking status (see discover_gardssalg's booking.live field) can be booked — a paused/not-yet-onboarded producer is rejected with a clear message, never a silent failure. VIKTIG: oppretter ALDRI en bekreftet booking — kun en avventende forespørsel; produsenten mottar forespørselen og svarer (bekrefter, foreslår nytt tidspunkt eller avslår). ONE-SENTENCE FLOW («book et møte hos X fredag 20. oktober kl. 10 for 4 personer»): call this ONCE with provider_query='X' (the producer's name — no discover_gardssalg round-trip needed), slot_at, party_size, guest_name, guest_email and requested_weekday='fredag'. The tool resolves X to exactly one producer (or returns candidates / not-found with NO booking created), checks that the date really is a Friday (or returns weekday_mismatch:true with the nearest Fridays, NO booking created), then submits the request and notifies the producer by email. guest_name and guest_email are the HUMAN guest's own — ask the guest for them if you do not have them; never invent or reuse someone else's. Required: provider_id OR provider_query, slot_at (requested date/time, 'YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM' Europe/Oslo), party_size, guest_name, guest_email. Optional: requested_weekday, experience_id, guest_phone, notes, confirm_outside_hours. The requested slot_at is ALWAYS hard-rejected if it's in the past or too far ahead. If the producer has stated opening hours and slot_at falls outside them, this returns outside_hours:true (not an error) instead of creating the booking — retry once with confirm_outside_hours:true if the exact requested time should be kept anyway. On success the response carries the resolved producer (provider.navn) and slot_at_local (e.g. 'fredag 23. oktober 2026 kl. 10:00') — read both back to the guest. Example: provider_query 'Fjordgard Bryggeri', slot_at '2026-10-23T10:00', requested_weekday 'fredag', party_size 4, guest_name 'Kari Nordmann', guest_email 'kari@example.no'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | Optional free-text note to the producer (e.g. dietary needs, arrival details). | |
| slot_at | Yes | Requested visit date/time, local (Europe/Oslo), format 'YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM'. Example: '2026-08-15T13:00'. This is a REQUEST — the producer may confirm, suggest another time, or decline. | |
| guest_name | Yes | Full name of the person the reservation is for. Example: 'Kari Nordmann' | |
| party_size | Yes | Number of people in the group (1-50). Example: 4 | |
| guest_email | Yes | Guest's email address — REQUIRED. Receives a confirmation-of-request email plus a read-only status link; the booking stays pending until the PRODUCER responds (confirms, proposes another time, or declines) — the guest's link cannot finalize anything. Example: 'kari@example.no' | |
| guest_phone | No | Optional guest phone number. | |
| provider_id | No | The gårdssalg producer's id — the `id` field of a discover_gardssalg result (NOT the profile slug). Example: '3f1b2c4d-...'. Either provider_id or provider_query is required; provider_id wins when both are given. | |
| experience_id | No | Optional experience UUID if this booking is for a specific listed experience rather than a general gårdssalg visit. | |
| provider_query | No | Alternative to provider_id: the producer's name as the guest said it, optionally with a place, e.g. 'Fjordgard Bryggeri' or 'Egge gård Steinkjer'. Resolved to exactly ONE producer; if several match, the tool returns the candidates (no booking created) so you can ask the guest which one; if none match, it says so. | |
| requested_weekday | No | Safety check — the weekday the guest actually said, e.g. 'fredag' or 'Friday'. If slot_at does not fall on that weekday (Europe/Oslo) the tool returns weekday_mismatch:true with the nearest dates that do, instead of booking the wrong day. Always pass it when the guest named a weekday. | |
| confirm_outside_hours | No | Set to true only when RETRYING after a previous call to this tool returned outside_hours:true and the requested time should be kept anyway, despite falling outside the producer's stated opening hours. Omit on a first attempt. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only provide basic flags, but the description discloses substantial behavior: it never finalizes a booking, the producer must respond, guest_email only receives a read-only status link, provider_query resolution can return candidates without booking, and various validations return flags like weekday_mismatch and outside_hours. This far exceeds what the annotations convey.
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 long but front-loaded with the most critical caveat ('NEVER creates a confirmed booking') and structured around an example flow. The bilingual repetition and repeated emphasis on the pending nature are somewhat redundant, making it slightly less concise than ideal while remaining scannable and useful.
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 complex state-changing tool with no output schema, the description covers the success response fields (provider.navn and slot_at_local), all major failure and edge-case paths, required versus optional parameters, validation behavior, and a complete example. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and to handle the outcomes.
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?
Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: provider_query is explained as a replacement for a discover round-trip, confirm_outside_hours is scoped to retry-only usage, and guest_name/guest_email are stressed as belonging to the actual human guest. It also explains hard rejection rules for slot_at that are not in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Submit a booking REQUEST for a Norwegian gårdssalg producer'—and immediately separates this from a confirmed booking by emphasizing it creates only a PENDING request. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from discovery-only sibling tools.
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?
It explicitly instructs 'call this ONCE', provides a concrete one-sentence flow with a full example, and states clear when-not-to-proceed conditions such as inactive producers, past/too-far slot_at, weekday mismatches, and outside-hours behavior. It also references discover_gardssalg's booking.live field and how to retry with confirm_outside_hours, so an agent knows exactly when and how to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the opplevagent.no curated marketplace of Norwegian experiences and activities. Filtrer på fylke (county), kategori, vær, sesong, innendørs/utendørs, gruppestørrelse, pris og varighet. / Filter by county, category, weather, season, indoor/outdoor, group size, price, and duration. Also supports near-me search via lat/lng (+ optional radius_km): when given, results include a rounded distance_km and a geo_precision flag ('address' = exact, 'kommune' = approximate municipality centroid) and are sorted nearest-first. Returns title, category, location (fylke/kommune), description, and booking URL if available. Only verified experiences from active providers (Brreg-checked) are returned. Examples: 'hva kan vi finne på i Troms om vinteren?', 'outdoor activities in Oslo for 4 people', 'experiences within 50km of lat 69.65 / lng 18.95'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | Age of the youngest participant. Filters out experiences with a minimum-age requirement above this. Example: 8 | |
| lat | No | Origin latitude for a near-me search (decimal degrees). Must be given together with lng. Example: 69.65 (Tromsø) | |
| lng | No | Origin longitude for a near-me search (decimal degrees). Must be given together with lat. Example: 18.95 (Tromsø) | |
| sort | No | 'distance' — sort results ascending by distance from lat/lng. Already the default whenever lat/lng are given; this makes the request explicit. | |
| fylke | No | Norwegian county (fylke). Examples: 'Oslo', 'Vestland', 'Troms', 'Rogaland' | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 50) | |
| season | No | Season filter. Examples: 'summer', 'winter', 'spring', 'autumn' | |
| kommune | No | Norwegian municipality (kommune). Examples: 'Tromsø', 'Bergen', 'Stavanger' | |
| weather | No | Weather suitability filter. 'rain'/'snow' prefers indoor + weather-independent experiences. Examples: 'rain', 'clear' | |
| category | No | Experience category slug. Examples: 'natur_friluft', 'dyreliv_safari', 'mat_drikke', 'vinter' | |
| language | No | Required language for the experience. Examples: 'no', 'en' | |
| max_price | No | Maximum price per person in Norwegian kroner (NOK). Example: 500 | |
| radius_km | No | Max distance from lat/lng in kilometers. Only applies when lat/lng are given. Example: 50 | |
| group_size | No | Number of people in the group. Used to filter experiences by min/max group capacity. Example: 4 | |
| duration_max | No | Maximum duration in minutes. Example: 120 (2 hours) | |
| indoor_outdoor | No | Indoor/outdoor preference. Examples: 'indoor', 'outdoor', 'both' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: results are verified (Brreg-checked), geo-precision flag, sorted nearest-first with lat/lng, and return fields. 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 reasonably concise and well-structured: purpose, filters, geo-features, return info, examples. The bilingual text adds length but is justified. Could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.
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 return fields (title, category, location, description, booking URL) and geo details. Missing pagination or error handling, but for a 16-parameter search tool it is 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% with good descriptions for each parameter. The description adds little beyond summarizing filters and repeating constraints (e.g., radius_km applies only with lat/lng). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for a coverage gap.
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 searches the opplevagent.no marketplace, distinguishing it from siblings like get_experience (single item) and list_experience_categories (categories). The verb 'search' and resource are specific, and examples solidify purpose.
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 when to use (searching experiences with various filters) but does not explicitly state when not to use or point to specific alternatives like get_experience or list_experience_categories. However, the context is clear enough for inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search opplevagent.no's gårdssalg (farm-sale) vertical — Brreg-registered Norwegian drink producers (bryggeri/cideri/vingård/destilleri/gårdskafé/mjød/seltzeri) selling directly from the farm. Finn norske gårdssalg-produsenter (drikkeprodusenter som selger direkte fra gården) etter fylke, kommune og produsenttype. / Filter by county (fylke), municipality (kommune), and producer type. Also supports near-me search via lat/lng (+ optional radius_km): when given, results include a rounded distance_km and are sorted nearest-first, and rows with no geocoded location are excluded (never a fabricated distance). Returns id (the provider_id for book_gardssalg), name, location, producer type, and an honest booking status (live direct booking vs. a dark-launch 'coming soon' note — never overclaims booking availability). To look up ONE specific producer by name (e.g. when the guest says 'book hos Fjordgard Bryggeri'), pass query. Examples: 'gårdssalg i Vestland', 'cideri near lat 60.4 / lng 5.3', 'bryggeri med booking', query: 'Fjordgard Bryggeri'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Origin latitude for a near-me search (decimal degrees). Must be given together with lng. Example: 69.65 (Tromsø) | |
| lng | No | Origin longitude for a near-me search (decimal degrees). Must be given together with lat. Example: 18.95 (Tromsø) | |
| fylke | No | Norwegian county (fylke) of the producer. Examples: 'Oslo', 'Vestland', 'Troms', 'Rogaland' | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 50) | |
| query | No | Free-text lookup of a specific producer by name and/or place, e.g. 'Fjordgard Bryggeri', 'Egge gård', 'sideri Hardanger'. Every word must match the producer's name, URL slug, place (poststed) or municipality; exact name matches rank first. Use this to get the `id` (provider_id) for book_gardssalg when the guest names a producer. | |
| kommune | No | Norwegian municipality (kommune) of the producer. Examples: 'Tromsø', 'Bergen', 'Stavanger' | |
| radius_km | No | Max distance from lat/lng in kilometers. Only applies when lat/lng are given. Example: 50 | |
| booking_live | No | When true, only return producers that currently accept direct bookings. Omit to include producers regardless of booking status. | |
| producer_type | No | Type of drink producer — one of the six canonical drink venue kinds: 'bryggeri' (brewery), 'cideri' (cidery), 'vingård' (winery), 'destilleri' (distillery), 'gårdskafé' (farm café), 'mjød'/'mjøderi' (meadery). 'seltzeri' also occurs in the data. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral nuance beyond that: results get a rounded distance_km and are nearest-first; rows without geocoded locations are excluded; distances are never fabricated; booking status is disclosed honestly; and only Brreg-registered producers are returned. This is exactly the kind of unobservable behavior an agent needs to know.
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 longer than average but information-dense, front-loading the tool's purpose and including a bilingual restatement that may help multilingual agents. The examples at the end concretely illustrate usage. It could be slightly tightened by merging the Norwegian and English sentences, but every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.
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 9 parameters, no required params, no output schema, and a rich set of behavioral caveats, the description is remarkably complete: it covers filtering, near-me behavior, sort order, exclusions, return fields, booking-status semantics, and how to use the result in a sibling tool. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with individual parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that query is for retrieving the id needed by book_gardssalg, that radius_km only applies when lat/lng are present, and that booking_live filters the returned list. This goes beyond the schema without duplicating it.
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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('opplevagent.no's gårdssalg vertical') and enumerates exactly what kinds of producers are covered. It clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly mentioning that the returned id is the provider_id for book_gardssalg, and by framing itself as a discovery tool rather than an experience or booking tool.
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?
It gives concrete guidance on when to use query for a named producer ('when the guest names a producer') and when to use lat/lng for near-me search. It also explains filter dimensions (fylke, kommune, producer_type) and booking_live. However, it does not explicitly contrast with discover_experiences or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternative-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch complete details for a single experience from opplevagent.no by its UUID. Henter fullstendig informasjon om en opplevelse via UUID. Returns title, full description, category, location (fylke/kommune/meeting point), indoor/outdoor, season, weather suitability, group size limits, age suitability, price, duration, languages, booking URL, and booking type. Obtain the UUID from discover_experiences results. Example: id 'a1b2c3d4-e5f6-7890-abcd-ef1234567890'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | UUID of the experience to fetch. Example: 'a1b2c3d4-e5f6-7890-abcd-ef1234567890' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds the source (opplevagent.no) and lists returned fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth needs.
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?
Description is front-loaded with purpose and includes bilingual content which may be unnecessary for an AI agent but is not overly verbose. Could be slightly more concise but still effective.
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, description provides a detailed list of returned fields (title, description, category, location, etc.) and usage instruction (UUID from discover_experiences). This compensates well for the lack of output schema.
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 UUID format and description. Description provides an example UUID, reinforcing the schema but adding no new semantic information. 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?
Description clearly states 'Fetch complete details for a single experience' and enumerates the returned fields, making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'discover_experiences' which lists experiences.
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 mentions obtaining UUID from discover_experiences results, guiding the agent on prerequisite. Clear that this tool is for fetching one experience, not listing or booking, but no explicit when-not statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all experience categories available on opplevagent.no, along with the number of verified experiences in each category. Henter alle kategorier med antall verifiserte opplevelser. Use this to understand what kinds of experiences are available before calling discover_experiences with a specific category filter. Example question: 'hvilke typer opplevelser finnes i Norge?', 'what categories are available?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns counts of verified experiences, which is useful behavioral context beyond the safety profile.
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?
Description is concise with two sentences in English and Norwegian, but the bilingual content is slightly redundant. Front-loaded with main purpose.
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, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description provides sufficient information: what it does, when to use, and what it returns (categories with counts).
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 exist, so baseline is 4. No additional parameter meaning needed.
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 lists all experience categories with counts, specifying the resource (categories on opplevagent.no) and action (list with number of verified experiences). This distinguishes it from siblings like discover_experiences.
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 advises use before discover_experiences for category filter, with example questions like 'hvilke typer opplevelser finnes i Norge?'. This provides clear when-to-use context and differentiates from similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
discover_gardssalg1 field changedInput schema / properties / producer_type / descriptionPrevious value: -"Type of drink producer. Examples: 'bryggeri' (brewery), 'cideri' (cidery), 'vingård' (vineyard), 'destilleri' (distillery), 'mjøderi' (meadery), 'seltzeri'"New value: +"Type of drink producer — one of the six canonical drink venue kinds: 'bryggeri' (brewery), 'cideri' (cidery), 'vingård' (winery), 'destilleri' (distillery), 'gårdskafé' (farm café), 'mjød'/'mjøderi' (meadery). 'seltzeri' also occurs in the data."book_gardssalg4 fields changedInput schema / properties / provider_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The gårdssalg producer's id, from a discover_gardssalg result (NOT the profile slug). Example: '3f1b2c4d-...'"New value: +"The gårdssalg producer's id — the `id` field of a discover_gardssalg result (NOT the profile slug). Example: '3f1b2c4d-...'. Either provider_id or provider_query is required; provider_id wins when both are given."Input schema / properties / provider_queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alternative to provider_id: the producer's name as the guest said it, optionally with a place, e.g. 'Fjordgard Bryggeri' or 'Egge gård Steinkjer'. Resolved to exactly ONE producer; if several match, the tool returns the candidates (no booking created) so you can ask the guest which one; if none match, it says so.",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / requested_weekdayAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Safety check — the weekday the guest actually said, e.g. 'fredag' or 'Friday'. If slot_at does not fall on that weekday (Europe/Oslo) the tool returns weekday_mismatch:true with the nearest dates that do, instead of booking the wrong day. Always pass it when the guest named a weekday.",
+ "maxLength": 20,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "provider_id",
- "slot_at",
- "party_size",
- "guest_name",
- "guest_email"
-]New value: +[
+ "slot_at",
+ "party_size",
+ "guest_name",
+ "guest_email"
+]discover_gardssalg1 field changedInput schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Free-text lookup of a specific producer by name and/or place, e.g. 'Fjordgard Bryggeri', 'Egge gård', 'sideri Hardanger'. Every word must match the producer's name, URL slug, place (poststed) or municipality; exact name matches rank first. Use this to get the `id` (provider_id) for book_gardssalg when the guest names a producer.",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "type": "string"
+}book_gardssalg1 field changedInput schema / properties / confirm_outside_hoursAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Set to true only when RETRYING after a previous call to this tool returned outside_hours:true and the requested time should be kept anyway, despite falling outside the producer's stated opening hours. Omit on a first attempt.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}book_gardssalgdiscover_gardssalgdiscover_experiences4 fields changedInput schema / properties / latAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Origin latitude for a near-me search (decimal degrees). Must be given together with lng. Example: 69.65 (Tromsø)",
+ "maximum": 90,
+ "minimum": -90,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / lngAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Origin longitude for a near-me search (decimal degrees). Must be given together with lat. Example: 18.95 (Tromsø)",
+ "maximum": 180,
+ "minimum": -180,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / radius_kmAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Max distance from lat/lng in kilometers. Only applies when lat/lng are given. Example: 50",
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 5000,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / sortAdded value: +{
+ "description": "'distance' — sort results ascending by distance from lat/lng. Already the default whenever lat/lng are given; this makes the request explicit.",
+ "enum": [
+ "distance"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}discover_experiencesget_experiencelist_experience_categorieslokal_discoverlokal_get_producer_affiliationslokal_get_umbrella_memberslokal_infolokal_list_umbrellaslokal_searchlokal_statsdiscover_experiencesget_experiencelist_experience_categorieslokal_discoverlokal_get_producer_affiliationslokal_get_umbrella_memberslokal_infolokal_list_umbrellaslokal_searchlokal_statsdiscover_experiencesget_experiencelist_experience_categoriesEntur MCP — Norway public transport, nationwide, all modes (developer.entur.org)
Stortinget (Norwegian Parliament) open data MCP — data.stortinget.no.
Find concerts, theatre, sport and festivals in Sweden. Authless, read-only MCP.
Brønnøysund Register Centre (BRREG) MCP — Norway's official business register.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.