Siima eSIM
Server Details
Search travel eSIM plans for 150+ countries and buy via Stripe link; eSIM QR delivered by email.
- 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 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: searching plans, fetching plan details, creating a checkout link, and listing destinations. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_checkout_link, list_destinations). No mixing of conventions.
Four tools cover the core workflow of browsing and purchasing eSIM plans. The count is well-scoped for the server's purpose without being too few or excessive.
The tool surface covers the complete user journey: searching plans, getting details, listing destinations, and purchasing via a checkout link. No obvious gaps for the intended use case.
Available Tools
4 toolscreate_checkout_linkCreate eSIM checkout linkAInspect
Create a secure Stripe-hosted payment link for a Siima eSIM plan. Give the returned url to the user to complete payment. Optionally pass the buyer's email to pre-fill it; otherwise Stripe collects it on the payment page. After payment, the eSIM QR code, one-tap activation link, and manual installation codes are emailed to the buyer within a minute. No account or signup is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Buyer email to pre-fill at checkout (eSIM is delivered to this address) | ||
| plan_id | Yes | Plan id from search_esim_plans |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the link is secure, that the user completes payment on Stripe, that optional email pre-fill is available, that delivery happens within a minute after payment, and that no account is required. It doesn't discuss auth, rate limits, or error states, but these are less critical for a payment link creation 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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: main purpose, how to use, and what happens after. No fluff, front-loaded with the key action.
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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the full workflow: creating the link, using it, and the resulting email delivery. It is fully self-contained and adequate for correct invocation.
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 100% on 2 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the email parameter's optionality and default behavior (Stripe collects if not provided), and relates plan_id to the sibling search_esim_plans. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.
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 creates a Stripe-hosted payment link for a Siima eSIM plan, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools (get_esim_plan, list_destinations, search_esim_plans) which are about information retrieval, not creating payment links.
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 tells the agent to give the returned URL to the user for payment, covers optional email pre-fill, and explains the post-payment flow. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations, but the context is clear enough for a straightforward tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_esim_planGet eSIM plan detailsAInspect
Fetch full details of a single Siima eSIM plan by its id (from search_esim_plans). To buy: call create_checkout_link with the plan id, give the returned URL to the user. After payment the eSIM (QR code + activation link + manual codes) is emailed to them automatically — no account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | Yes | Plan id returned by search_esim_plans |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full weight. It correctly implies a read-only operation (fetch) and does not disclose any side effects or restrictions. It is adequate but could mention it is read-only explicitly.
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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately following with workflow guidance. 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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and flow. It could optionally mention the nature of 'full details' but is sufficiently complete 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that plan_id comes from search_esim_plans, which the schema already says. No additional semantic value is added.
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 fetches full details of a single eSIM plan by id, tying it explicitly to the sibling tool search_esim_plans. It distinguishes itself from other tools like create_checkout_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 provides explicit workflow: after fetching details, use create_checkout_link to buy. It tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_destinationsList covered destinationsAInspect
List all countries Siima has eSIM plans for, with plan counts and the cheapest total price in USD per country. Country codes are ISO 3166-1 alpha-2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While it describes the output, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects.
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 sentences: first states purpose and output, second adds detail on code format. No redundant information; every sentence is necessary.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return data (plan counts, cheapest price, ISO codes). For a simple listing tool with no parameters, this is sufficient. Could note ordering or format, but not critical.
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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output fields (plan counts, cheapest price, ISO codes), which is not part of the schema. Baseline is 4 for no params.
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 lists all countries with eSIM plans, providing plan counts and cheapest price per country. It specifies the resource (countries) and distinguishes it from siblings like create_checkout_link or get_esim_plan.
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 implies usage to retrieve a list of covered countries, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_esim_plans. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_esim_plansSearch Siima travel eSIM plansAInspect
Search prepaid travel eSIM data plans by destination country (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, e.g. "JP"), region (e.g. "Europe"), minimum data in GB, maximum total price in USD, or plan duration in days. Returned price_usd is the final amount the customer pays at checkout (all fees included). To buy: call create_checkout_link with the plan id, give the returned URL to the user. After payment the eSIM (QR code + activation link + manual codes) is emailed to them automatically — no account needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return | |
| region | No | Region name, e.g. "Europe", "Asia" | |
| country | No | Destination country as ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, e.g. "JP" for Japan | |
| min_data_gb | No | Minimum data allowance in GB | |
| duration_days | No | Exact plan duration in days | |
| max_price_usd | No | Maximum total price in USD (checkout total) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the price field is the final checkout amount, and eSIM delivery via email with no account needed. This adds sufficient transparency for agent use.
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 sentences: first states search criteria, second explains downstream process. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with purpose.
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?
Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: search, buying flow, and post-payment delivery. It could mention other return fields, but the key one (price_usd) is explained.
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?
While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds context about country format (ISO code), region examples, and the meaning of price_usd. This provides additional meaning beyond the 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's purpose: searching prepaid travel eSIM plans by multiple criteria. It distinguishes from sibling tools by outlining the buying flow with create_checkout_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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including how to proceed after finding a plan (call create_checkout_link). While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear enough.
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!