Stayspan Schengen Days

Plan Schengen trip

plan_schengen_trip

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks how many days can I stay in Europe, wants a schengen visa calculator or needs to plan 90 days in 180 days. Finds the maximum consecutive short stay from an entry date and the first entry that supports a requested length. Past stays must be closed and end by entry; up to 60 stays over 1,100 days, years 1900–2100, requested lengths 1–90 days. Does not authorize entry or model bilateral agreements, residence permits, long-stay visas or visa-sticker limits; not legal advice.

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": {
      "past_stays": "<past_stays>",
      "entry_date": "<entry_date>"
    },
    "name": "plan_schengen_trip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`entry_date`	Yes	Planned first day in Schengen. Example: 2026-07-01 or July 1, 2026. Past stays must end on or before this day.
`past_stays`	Yes	Up to 60 short stays spanning at most 1,100 days. Example: [{"entry_date":"2026-03-05","exit_date":"2026-03-20"}]. Use [] for none. Exclude residence-permit and type D visa days.
`planned_length`	No	Optional consecutive trip length, including entry and exit, from 1 to 90 days. Example: 30.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`note`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`downloads`	Yes
`entry_date`	Yes
`max_legal_days`	Yes
`planned_length`	Yes
`last_legal_exit`	Yes
`days_used_before_trip`	Yes
`history_overstay_days`	Yes
`planned_length_possible`	Yes
`first_entry_for_full_length`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description adds substantive computational scope (maximum consecutive stay, first supporting entry), operating limits (60 stays, 1,100 days, years 1900–2100, lengths 1–90), and explicit non-coverage (bilateral agreements, residence permits, long-stay visas, not legal advice). This is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The trigger condition is front-loaded and the subsequent sentences carry scope, limits, and disclaimers without obvious padding. It is a dense single paragraph but each clause informs selection or correct invocation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose, constraints, and exclusions thoroughly. The only thin spot is explicit sibling routing, which appears elsewhere in the usage dimension.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description reinforces constraints that map to the parameters (closed past stays ending by entry, 60-stay and 1,100-day caps, 1–90 length range). It adds marginal interpretative value rather than syntax detail the schema already supplies.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource outcome: 'Finds the maximum consecutive short stay from an entry date and the first entry that supports a requested length,' which is concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools. It stops short of naming calculate_schengen_days or find_schengen_reset_dates, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring from the outcome description.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The opening sentence gives clear trigger phrases ('how many days can I stay in Europe', 'schengen visa calculator', 'plan 90 days in 180 days') and the closing sentence scopes out what it does not handle. However, it never explicitly routes to the sibling tools or states when those are preferable over this one.

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

All Stayspan Schengen Days tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?