Search & compare prices for tours, activities and tickets across multiple providers.
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.
Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct task: search_experiences for general search, get_destination_guide for curated top activities, and compare_experience for price comparison. No overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_experiences, compare_experience, get_destination_guide). The naming is clear and predictable across the set.
With only 3 tools, the server is lean but covers the core use cases of searching, recommending, and comparing experiences. The count is appropriate for a focused oracle, though a tool for checking availability or user reviews could be added without bloating.
The tool surface covers key operations: discovering experiences (search), getting curated highlights (destination guide), and price comparison. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct booking or availability check, but these are likely out of scope for an oracle server.
compare_experienceConfronta il prezzo tra i providerAConfronta 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 |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent. The description adds that it compares across three specific providers and gives a verdict/link. It could mention potential limitations (e.g., not all experiences may be available) but overall adds useful behavior context 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?
The description is concise: one paragraph with two sentences outlining purpose and usage, plus a one-line argument description. No redundant 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?
Given the low complexity (1 param, output schema present, annotations provided), the description is complete. It specifies the data sources (three providers), shows how to get the input, and notes the output (verdict and link). No gaps.
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 experience_id is described with a format example ('viator_12345'), which adds meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). Since there is only one param and the example is helpful, this is adequate.
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 the price of the same experience across providers (Viator, Tiqets, Headout) and indicates the cheapest with a verdict and booking link. This is a specific verb+resource action that distinguishes it from siblings like 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 when to use: when the user wants the best price for a specific tour/activity, and passes the experience_id obtained from search_experiences. This provides clear context and exclusion criteria.
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 destinazioneALe 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 |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the description carries less burden. It adds context about ordering by quality and including booking links, which is useful but not extensive. There is no contradiction 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 concise with no wasted words. It begins with a clear statement of purpose, followed by usage guidance, then a parameter list. The structure is logical and front-loaded.
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 simple parameter set (2 parameters, 1 required), 0% schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description covers input explanations and output content (ordered experiences with booking links). It is complete for the tool's purpose.
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 the description must compensate fully. It does so by explaining 'place' as a city or country with examples, and 'limit' as number of results with a maximum of 30. This adds complete meaning beyond the schema's type and default.
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 retrieves the best experiences and things to do in a destination, ordered by quality, with booking links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a guided list of top activities, which is explicitly compared to 'compare_experience' and '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?
The description explicitly says when to use the tool: when the user is planning a trip or asking for top activities/experiences. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the sibling tools imply alternatives, and the guidance provided is clear and contextual.
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 bigliettiACerca 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 |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the burden is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns real results, redirects to a PIQOD affiliate link, and explains parameter behavior. 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 moderately long but well-structured with a clear flow: what it does, when to use, important notes, parameter mapping. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value. The bilingual Italian-English may cause minor readability issues.
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 complexity (9 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage with examples, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits (affiliate redirect). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly, explaining each parameter's meaning and how to map user intents (e.g., keyword for specific attractions, skip_the_line for skip-the-line requests). This far exceeds the baseline needed for 9 parameters.
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 searches for tours, activities, and experiences to book in a location or travel intent. It uses specific verbs ('Cerca') and resources ('tour, attività ed esperienze'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it returns real results with city, price, rating, and an affiliate link.
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 says 'USA QUESTO TOOL quando l'utente cerca cose da fare...' and provides detailed guidance on mapping user intents to parameters (e.g., 'skip-the-line' -> skip_the_line=True). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives to siblings.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
