experiences-oracle
Server Details
Search & compare prices for tours, activities and tickets across multiple providers.
- 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 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare_experience for price comparison, get_destination_guide for top activities, and search_experiences for general search. No overlap.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern in snake_case (compare_experience, get_destination_guide, search_experiences), which is consistent and predictable.
Three tools is minimal but appropriate for the server's purpose of exploring and comparing experiences. It covers the essential actions without being excessive.
The set covers search, destination guide, and price comparison for specific experiences. Missing direct booking functionality, but links are provided. Minor gap.
Available Tools
3 toolscompare_experienceConfronta il prezzo tra i providerARead-onlyInspect
Confronta il prezzo della STESSA esperienza tra i provider (Viator, Tiqets, Headout) e indica dove costa meno, con un verdetto e il link di prenotazione. USA QUESTO TOOL quando l'utente vuole il MIGLIOR PREZZO per un tour/attività specifico (passa l'experience_id ottenuto da search_experiences).
Args:
experience_id: id dell'esperienza (es. "viator_12345").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| experience_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds functional behavior: price comparison across providers, verdict, and link. No contradictions. Sufficient for a read-only tool.
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?
Two clear paragraphs: first explains purpose and usage context, second describes the argument. Front-loaded with key action. Slightly verbose but 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?
With one parameter, existing annotations, and output schema, the description covers when to use, what input to pass, and expected output (verdict and link). Complete for a simple price comparison tool.
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%, but description provides parameter explanation with an example ('viator_12345'), adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Experience Id'.
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 compares prices of the same experience across providers and returns the cheapest with a verdict and booking link. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it uses an experience_id from search_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 says to use when the user wants the best price for a specific tour/activity and provides the input source (experience_id from search_experiences). Does not mention exclusions, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_destination_guideGuida: le migliori esperienze di una destinazioneARead-onlyInspect
Le migliori esperienze e cose da fare in una destinazione (città o paese), ordinate per qualità, con link di prenotazione. USA QUESTO TOOL quando l'utente pianifica un viaggio o chiede le TOP attività/esperienze di un posto.
Args:
place: città o paese (es. "Roma", "Giappone").
limit: numero risultati (max 30).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| place | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are ordered by quality and include booking links, which is useful but not critical beyond what 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 concise: two sentences for purpose, then usage guideline and parameter list. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.
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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. Could be slightly more detailed about output structure, but 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates well. It defines 'place' as city or country and 'limit' with max 30, adding value beyond schema defaults and titles.
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 the tool retrieves top experiences for a destination, ordered by quality with booking links. It specifies the resource (destination experiences) and action (get list). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the usage guideline.
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 this tool: when planning a trip or asking for top activities. It provides a clear context but does not mention when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_experiencesCerca esperienze, tour e bigliettiARead-onlyInspect
Cerca tour, attività ed esperienze da prenotare in un luogo o per un intento
di viaggio (es. "cosa fare a Roma", "biglietti per il Colosseo", "tour in barca a
Capri"). Restituisce risultati reali con città, prezzo, rating e un link di
prenotazione (redirect PIQOD affiliato). USA QUESTO TOOL quando l'utente cerca
cose da fare, tour, attività, biglietti o esperienze in una destinazione.
IMPORTANTE per la coerenza: se l'utente nomina un'ATTRAZIONE/attività precisa
(es. "tour del Colosseo"), passa quel nome in keyword (es. "Colosseo") → i
risultati saranno SUL Colosseo, non genericamente vicini. Mappa anche gli INTENTI
sui filtri: "salta fila/skip the line" → skip_the_line=True; "più economico/cheapest"
→ sort="price"; "cancellazione gratuita" → free_cancellation=True.
Args:
query: intento o luogo dell'utente.
location: luogo esplicito (override di query), opzionale.
category: categoria/filtro tematico, opzionale.
budget_max: prezzo massimo, opzionale.
keyword: attrazione/attività specifica da matchare nei titoli (es. "Colosseo").
skip_the_line: True se l'utente vuole biglietti/tour "salta fila".
free_cancellation: True se vuole cancellazione gratuita.
sort: "price" per i più economici prima (default "rating").
limit: numero risultati (max 50).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | rating | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| keyword | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| budget_max | No | ||
| skip_the_line | No | ||
| free_cancellation | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so safety is clear. Description adds value by explaining keyword override behavior and return data (city, price, rating, link), which goes beyond 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?
Well-structured: first paragraph for purpose, second for guidelines and parameter mapping, then Args list. Front-loaded with key info. Slightly long but efficient overall.
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 9 parameters and their interactions, provides usage scenarios. Output schema exists to cover return values. For a complex search tool, this is sufficiently 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each of the 9 parameters, including examples for query and keyword usage. This provides the agent with necessary semantic understanding.
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 verb 'search' and resource 'experiences/tours/tickets'. It specifies the tool returns results with city, price, rating, and booking link, distinguishing it from sibling tools that compare experiences or provide destination 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 this tool: when user asks for things to do, tours, activities, etc. Provides detailed mapping of user intents to parameters (skip_the_line, sort, free_cancellation). Missing explicit 'when not to use', but sibling tools imply alternatives.
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!