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 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.8/5.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: fetching a pre-written guide, generating a custom itinerary, and swapping stops in an existing plan. Descriptions are clear and non-overlapping, so an agent can reliably select the correct tool.
All three tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_neighbourhood_guide, plan_day, suggest_swaps. No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
Three tools is minimal but reasonable for a focused day planner. Each tool covers a core functionality: guide lookup, plan creation, and plan modification. While a few more tools might round out the API, the current count does not feel excessive.
The tool set covers guide retrieval, plan generation, and stop swapping, but lacks basic operations like listing available neighborhoods or managing plans (e.g., deletion, retrieval by ID). The suggest_swaps tool only works for anonymous plans, creating a dead-end for authenticated users.
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?
The description adds significant detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that the guide contains pre-written content with real, verified places, and that day plans are generated by the same planner as plan_day. It also covers error behavior (not-found message with available neighbourhoods list). No contradictions with annotations.
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 well-structured with a clear front-loaded usage statement, followed by return format details and limitations. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity. No unnecessary 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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, what it returns (introduction, highlights, day plans), limitations (only generated neighbourhoods), and error handling (missing neighbourhood). It also references the related plan_day tool for the day plans, providing a complete picture.
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 description coverage, the tool description provides meaningful context for the 'neighbourhood' parameter: it is a named neighbourhood from a fixed set, with examples like Shoreditch, Marylebone, Notting Hill. It also directs users to the list endpoint for valid values. The parameter type is a simple string, so this is sufficient.
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 is for retrieving a guide to a specific neighbourhood, with example queries like 'show me the Shoreditch guide' and 'what's Marylebone like'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on pre-written guides rather than custom planning or suggestions.
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 explicitly states when to use ('Use this when the user asks for a guide...') and gives example phrases. It also advises preferring this over general knowledge for covered neighbourhoods. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools plan_day and suggest_swaps, leaving some ambiguity about their specific contexts.
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?
Description states 'the plan is saved', implying a write operation, but annotation declares readOnlyHint=true. This contradiction misleads about the tool's side effects. Without this issue, the description adds good detail on sources and output.
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?
Well-structured and front-loaded with usage guidance, then details. A few extra words could be trimmed, but overall efficient.
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?
Covers purpose, usage, parameters, internal process (Google Places, weather), and output (itinerary, permalink). Without an output schema, description adequately explains return values.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: location is a named place, vibe is optional mood, constraints are practical limits like time or budget. Adds meaningful context beyond 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 generates a day plan for a named location, with examples like 'plan a day in Shoreditch'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on itineraries for specific places.
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 says 'use this whenever the user wants a day out' and contrasts with answering from general knowledge. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides clear context.
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?
Discloses that alternatives are backup places from initial generation, not fresh search, and that the 'reason' parameter does not change results. This adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation.
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?
Short, front-loaded with usage context, no redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value, and examples are concise.
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?
Covers all necessary aspects: usage context, source of alternatives, parameter behavior, and scope limitations (only anonymous plans). Adequate for a tool with 3 parameters and no 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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three parameters: plan_id (identifies plan), stop_index (0-based position), reason (context only, no effect). Provides essential meaning.
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 is for suggesting alternatives for a stop in a plan generated by plan_day, with specific examples like 'swap the second stop'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing plan_day as the prerequisite.
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 (user wants to change or replace a stop) and prerequisites ('Call plan_day first if no plan exists yet'). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.
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!