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. The description adds that output is 'compact, curated' and includes a URL, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the URL guidance is immediately actionable.
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?
The tool is minimal (1 param, annotations present, output schema exists). The description covers the essential: what it returns and how to use the URL. Complete for its simplicity.
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 description's omission of parameter details is acceptable. The parameter 'id' is already described in the schema as a route ID from search or recommend_tours; description adds no new semantics.
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 'Fetch' and the resource 'compact, curated details for one published hut-to-hut tour.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (recommend_tours, search) by specifying it fetches details for a single tour.
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 advises linking users to the returned URL, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, from sibling names, it's implied that this is for detail retrieval after obtaining an ID from search or recommend_tours.
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 that results include a canonical URL, but does not detail rate limits, data freshness, or other behavioral traits. 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?
Two concise sentences. First sentence states the purpose, second explains the output format. 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?
Despite having many parameters (10) and an output schema, the description does not explain how parameters combine, defaults, or behaviors when no parameters are provided. The mention of result URL is helpful but incomplete for a complex filtering 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 100% with all parameters described. The description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond stating the result URL. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 recommends hut-to-hut tours using structured data and availability rules. The verb 'recommend' is specific, and the resource 'hut-to-hut tours' differentiates it from siblings 'fetch' and 'search', which likely handle single items or generic search.
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?
Description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'fetch' and 'search'. No explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned beyond the core purpose.
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 description adds modest value by mentioning the output includes a URL. However, it does not disclose search behavior (e.g., pagination, default sorting) beyond 'compact public fields'.
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 short sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a 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?
For a simple search tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits behavior of 'maxResults' and details of what constitutes 'compact public fields'.
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 'query' is described). The description mentions 'compact public fields' but does not clarify parameters, especially 'maxResults' which lacks schema documentation. Description fails to compensate for this gap.
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 published hut-to-hut tours and specifies the output includes a URL. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fetch' (likely single tour retrieval) and 'recommend_tours' (recommendations), making the purpose distinct.
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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools 'fetch' or 'recommend_tours'. The description implies searching but provides no exclusions or preferred contexts.
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!