Hüttentouren
Server Details
Hut-to-hut hiking tours in the Alps with live availability from multiple booking systems.
- 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 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: 'fetch' retrieves details for a single tour, 'recommend_tours' suggests tours based on availability and data, and 'search' filters tours by public fields. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making tool selection straightforward.
The naming is mostly consistent with a verb-based pattern ('fetch', 'search', 'recommend_tours'), but 'recommend_tours' uses a plural noun while the others do not specify plurality. This minor deviation does not hinder readability, but it breaks perfect consistency.
With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a hut-to-hut tour domain that might benefit from operations like booking, updating, or deleting tours. While the tools cover core retrieval and recommendation, the scope seems limited, bordering on under-provisioned for typical agent workflows.
The toolset is severely incomplete for a tour management domain. It only supports read-only operations (fetch, search, recommend) with no ability to create, update, delete, or book tours. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures in handling full tour lifecycles.
Available Tools
3 toolsfetchFetch compact tour detailsARead-onlyInspect
Fetch compact, curated details for one published hut-to-hut tour. The returned url is the canonical huettentouren.org detail page — link users there.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Route id returned by search or recommend_tours. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| tour | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what gets returned ('compact, curated details') and the tour type ('published hut-to-hut'), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, this meets baseline expectations.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single required parameter), comprehensive annotations, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It provides adequate context for the agent to understand when and how to use this tool without needing to explain return values or low-level details.
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 100%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning where the id comes from ('returned by search or recommend_tours'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or semantic details beyond what the schema already states. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 specific action ('fetch'), resource ('compact, curated details'), and scope ('for one published hut-to-hut tour'). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'recommend_tours' and 'search' by focusing on retrieving details for a single known tour rather than discovering or listing tours.
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 context by specifying 'for one published hut-to-hut tour' and referencing where the 'id' parameter comes from ('returned by search or recommend_tours'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives for different scenarios, though the sibling tool names provide some context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recommend_toursRecommend hut-to-hut toursBRead-onlyInspect
Recommend fitting hut-to-hut tours using structured tour data and fresh availability rules. Each result includes url, the canonical huettentouren.org detail page — link users there, not to any upstream source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Preferred end date in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| from | No | Preferred start date in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| months | No | Preferred months in YYYY-MM format. | |
| people | No | Number of people in the group. | |
| privacy | No | Privacy controls for non-blocking preference insight capture. | |
| transport | No | Preferred access mode. | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results to return. | |
| difficulties | No | Allowed tour difficulty labels. | |
| durationMaxDays | No | Maximum tour duration in days. | |
| durationMinDays | No | Minimum tour duration in days. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | |
| warnings | Yes | |
| reasonCodes | Yes | |
| resultStatus | Yes | |
| noMatchReason | Yes | |
| freshnessPolicy | Yes | |
| normalizedInput | Yes | |
| degradationFlags | Yes | |
| recommendedRouteIds | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by mentioning 'fresh availability rules' which suggests real-time availability checking, but doesn't elaborate on rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'fresh' entails operationally.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key operational aspects without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity (10 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of both comprehensive annotations (readOnly, non-destructive) and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core recommendation purpose and hints at availability filtering, though it could better address usage context relative to siblings.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'months' interacts with 'from'/'to' dates or clarifying parameter priorities. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb 'recommend' and resource 'hut-to-hut tours' with additional context about using 'structured tour data and fresh availability rules.' It distinguishes from generic 'fetch' and 'search' siblings by specifying recommendation functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'fetch' and 'search.' The description mentions 'availability rules' which hints at filtering by availability, but doesn't establish clear boundaries or alternatives for different query scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch hut-to-hut toursBRead-onlyInspect
Search published hut-to-hut tours by compact public fields. Each result includes url, the canonical huettentouren.org detail page — link users there.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Free-text search query. | |
| maxResults | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it searches 'published' tours and uses 'compact public fields', which provides useful context about the data scope. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), annotations covering safety, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource and scope, though it could better address usage guidelines and parameter details to be fully comprehensive.
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 50% (only the 'query' parameter has a description). The description mentions searching by 'compact public fields', which loosely relates to the 'query' parameter but doesn't add specific meaning or syntax details. For the undocumented 'maxResults' parameter, it provides no compensation. With partial schema coverage, the description adds minimal value, meeting the baseline.
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 verb ('Search') and resource ('published hut-to-hut tours'), and specifies the scope ('by compact public fields'). It distinguishes from potential siblings by focusing on search rather than fetching or recommending. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'fetch' or 'recommend_tours' by name, which prevents a perfect score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'fetch' or 'recommend_tours'. It mentions searching by 'compact public fields', which implies a context but doesn't specify alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites for usage.
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!