Yondry: Day Out Planner
Server Details
Plan your perfect day out anywhere: itineraries and neighbourhood guides, tuned to mood and weather.
- 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 distinct purpose: getting a neighbourhood guide, creating a new day plan, and suggesting swaps for an existing plan. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_neighbourhood_guide, plan_day, suggest_swaps), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 3 tools, the set is tightly scoped to the core workflow of day planning: accessing guides, creating plans, and modifying them. No unnecessary tools.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle: guide, plan, and swap. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list available locations or retrieve a plan by ID, but the existing tools handle most needs effectively.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_neighbourhood_guideGet a neighbourhood guideARead-onlyInspect
Use this when the user asks for a guide to, an overview of, or "the best of" a specific neighbourhood — e.g. "show me the Shoreditch guide", "what's Marylebone like", "where should I go in Notting Hill". Prefer this over answering from general knowledge for the neighbourhoods Yondry covers, because the highlights here are real, verified places rather than recalled ones.
Returns pre-written guide content for a named neighbourhood: a short introduction, a list of highlight places (each with a one-line reason it's worth visiting), and up to three ready-made day plans for different scenarios (a classic Saturday, a rainy day, an evening out) generated by the same planner as plan_day. Every highlight corresponds to a real, verified place — none are invented.
Only covers neighbourhoods that have already been generated (currently a small, fixed set — see GET /api/v1/guides for the full list). Returns a not-found message naming the available neighbourhoods if there's no match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| neighbourhood | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the description. The description adds context: highlights are real, verified places, guides are pre-written, and only a fixed set of neighbourhoods are covered. It also discloses that it returns a not-found message with available options.
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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, but it is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence adds value, so it is efficient despite being longer than minimal.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return structure. It does so adequately: introduction, highlight places with reasons, and up to three day plans generated by the same planner as plan_day. It could be slightly more detailed about the day plans, but it is largely sufficient.
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 single parameter 'neighbourhood' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning by providing example values (Shoreditch, Marylebone, Notting Hill) and explaining that if no match, it returns a list of available neighbourhoods. This significantly compensates for the schema 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 that the tool returns a pre-written guide for a neighbourhood, including an introduction, highlights with reasons, and day plans. It distinguishes itself from general knowledge and sibling tools (plan_day, suggest_swaps) by emphasizing verified, pre-written content.
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 specifies when to use: when the user asks for a guide, overview, or 'the best of' a neighbourhood, with examples like 'show me the Shoreditch guide'. It advises preferring this over general knowledge and notes that it covers a fixed set, returning available neighbourhoods if no match.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
plan_dayPlan a day outARead-onlyInspect
Use this whenever the user wants a day out, an itinerary, or ideas for things to do in a specific place — e.g. "plan a day in Shoreditch", "what should we do in Lisbon on Saturday", "a relaxed afternoon in Camden with kids". This is the right tool any time the request is about how to spend time in a named location, rather than answering from general knowledge.
Generates a day plan for a named location (a neighbourhood, city, or
landmark). vibe describes the desired mood (e.g. "relaxed", "foodie",
"cultural"); constraints covers practical limits (e.g. "no more than 3
hours", "budget-friendly", "with kids"). Both are optional free text.
Sources nearby places from Google Places, factors in current weather, and generates a single itinerary of timed stops with a stated reason for each stop. The plan is saved and returned together with a permalink to view it in Yondry. Assumes walking as the default way to get around.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vibe | No | ||
| location | Yes | ||
| constraints | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the plan is 'saved', implying a write operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This contradicts the annotation, so score is 1 per instructions.
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?
Five sentences, front-loaded with usage context, then parameter details, then behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers input, behavior (Google Places, weather, itinerary generation), and output (timed stops, permalink). Complete enough for an agent.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'vibe' and 'constraints' as optional free text with examples (e.g. 'relaxed', 'budget-friendly'). Location is not elaborated but is obvious.
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 plans a day out, generating an itinerary for a named location, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from general knowledge by requiring a location.
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 tells when to use (user wants day out, itinerary, ideas for a place) and gives examples. However, it does not mention when not to use or differentiate from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
suggest_swapsSuggest alternative stops for a planARead-onlyInspect
Use this when the user wants to change, replace, or see alternatives for one stop in a plan that plan_day already produced — e.g. "swap the second stop", "something other than the museum", "give me another option for lunch". Call plan_day first if no plan exists yet.
Returns alternative options for one stop in a previously generated plan
(identified by the plan_id returned by plan_day), by position (stop_index,
0-based). Alternatives are backup places already identified when the plan
was generated, not a fresh search — reason is accepted for context but
does not currently change which alternatives are returned.
Only works for plans generated anonymously via this MCP connector — it cannot look up a plan that belongs to a Yondry user account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| plan_id | Yes | ||
| stop_index | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond readOnlyHint by clarifying that alternatives are pre-identified, reason parameter is accepted but ineffective, and the tool only works for anonymous plans. No side effects or destructive actions disclosed, but alignment with readOnlyHint is adequate.
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 dense but well-structured: starts with usage, then behavior, then limitation. Could be slightly more concise, but each sentence adds value and is front-loaded with actionable 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?
Missing output format details—the description doesn't specify what the returned alternatives look like (e.g., object structure, fields). Given no output schema, the tool would benefit from describing the return value.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains plan_id (identifies plan), stop_index (0-based position), and reason (context but unused). This provides necessary meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.
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 suggests alternative stops for a plan, using a specific verb 'suggest' and resource 'stops in a plan'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for swapping stops, not for initial planning or guides.
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 states when to use: for changing/replacing a stop, and instructs to call plan_day first if no plan exists. Implicitly excludes fresh searches by noting alternatives are pre-identified backups. Could be clearer on specific exclusions.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Flicense-qualityBmaintenanceConverts natural language travel requests into customizable multi-city itineraries, with tools for planning, editing, and exporting trips across 69 global destinations.
- Flicense-quality-maintenanceEnables AI-assisted travel planning with real-time weather forecasts, place discovery, customized itinerary generation based on interests and budget, and travel distance calculations between cities.
- Flicense-qualityBmaintenancePrepares reminders for going out based on weather conditions and suggests meetup spots using weather and location data, with optional AI curation.
