Skip to main content
Glama

Yondry: Day Out Planner

by io.github.yondry-ltd

Plan a day out

plan_day
Read-only

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vibeNo
locationYes
constraintsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

All Yondry: Day Out Planner toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources