A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceEnables searching SAC huts, checking availability, and preparing booking or cancellation handoffs on hut-reservation.org with a safety model for writes.
10
12
2
MIT
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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: fetch retrieves details for a single tour, recommend_tours provides recommendations based on availability, and search allows searching by fields. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (fetch, recommend_tours, search) using lowercase with underscores for multi-word names.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools is slightly low but appropriate for a focused domain of hut-to-hut tours. The set covers core read operations without extraneous tools.
Completeness3/5
The surface covers fetching, searching, and recommending, but lacks any write or interactive tools (e.g., booking, rating). For a read-only catalog, it may be sufficient, but gaps exist for full lifecycle.
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Route id returned by search or recommend_tours. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| tour | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting the returned details are 'compact' and 'curated', and that the url should be used for the canonical page, which informs the agent about the nature of the output and expected user action. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with zero superfluous words. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action and providing guidance on using the result. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (1 required parameter, no nested objects, presence of output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what the input is, and how to use the output (direct users to the url). No further explanation of return values is needed due to output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the id parameter described as 'Route id returned by search or recommend_tours.' The tool description doesn't repeat that but indirectly reinforces it by mentioning the tool fetches 'one published hut-to-hut tour.' This adds contextual meaning beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches 'compact, curated details for one published hut-to-hut tour', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (recommend_tours, search) which return lists or recommendations, while this returns 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the returned 'url' is canonical and should be linked to users, providing clear post-invocation guidance. The input schema's parameter description explicitly ties the id to results from search or recommend_tours, indicating when to use this tool. Though it doesn't state when not to use, the context is sufficient.
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 toursARead-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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| 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
ParametersJSON 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
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning 'fresh availability rules' and the canonical URL requirement, which goes 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the essential purpose and output format. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, but it provides high-level context about how parameters are used (e.g., structured data, availability rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it recommends hut-to-hut tours using structured data and availability rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'fetch' and 'search' by specifying the focus on recommendations and linking to canonical pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for recommending tours based on preferences, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'search' or 'fetch'. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Free-text search query. | |
| maxResults | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds context about returning a 'url' field and searching by 'compact public fields', but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination, ordering, or filtering limits. This is adequate but not enriching 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a key detail about the result structure. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the basic functionality but omits important contextual details such as what 'compact public fields' are, whether full-text search is supported, or how results are ordered. With an output schema present, return values are presumably documented, but the description could be more complete by specifying search behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 50% description coverage (only 'query' has a description). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of either parameter beyond the schema. For example, 'maxResults' lacks any description in both schema and description. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('search') and the target resource ('published hut-to-hut tours'). It specifies that results include a URL to the canonical detail page, adding clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings ('fetch' and 'recommend_tours'), so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for searching tours but provides no guidance on when to use it over alternatives like 'fetch' or 'recommend_tours'. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to explore Swiss hiking routes with real-time closures, weather, public transport, and POIs, including GPX generation.MIT
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceLets an LLM plan hikes anywhere in Switzerland by combining named routes, elevation profiles, weather forecasts, and public transport.7
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceFinds marked hiking routes from OpenStreetMap filtered by locally-computed elevation gain, distance, loop shape, and car/chairlift access, providing consistent and tunable metrics instead of third-party scraped data.1MIT