tripadvisor-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct data type or operation: details, photos, reviews, two search methods, a fallback detail tool, and a diagnostic. The only overlap (ta_get_location_details vs. ta_web_get_location) is clearly differentiated by fallback purpose and scope.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the 'ta_[verb]_[noun]' convention, with 'ta_web_' prefix for browser-bridge tools. Verbs are clear (get, search) and nouns are specific (location_details, location_photos, etc.), forming a predictable pattern.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the essential read operations for TripAdvisor locations (details, photos, reviews, search) plus a fallback and healthcheck. This is well-scoped for a data-retrieval MCP server.
Completeness4/5
The server covers core location retrieval and search, with pagination on reviews and photos. Missing write operations are appropriate for a read-only API, but there is no direct way to filter reviews by rating or date, which is a minor gap.
Average 4.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 6 of 6 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 41 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 6, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'with pagination' which is partially covered by parameters, providing minimal extra behavioral context.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.
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?
For a paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and pagination but lacks details on response format, ordering, or filtering beyond locale. Adequate but with gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%; each parameter is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what is in the input schema.
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 retrieves traveler reviews for a TripAdvisor location with pagination support. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ta_get_location_details and ta_get_location_photos by specifying reviews.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ta_get_location_details. No context for prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that it returns 'full details' with specific fields, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if locationId is invalid. 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?
Single sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates key returned data without unnecessary words. Efficient and well-structured.
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 simplicity and full parameter coverage, the description is complete enough. It lists major return fields, though output schema is absent. Works well with annotations.
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%, with descriptions for locationId and locale. The description repeats some parameter context by listing returned fields, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema.
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 specifies the action 'Get full details' for a TripAdvisor location, lists specific fields (names, descriptions, address, coordinates, traveler ratings, phone, category, listing URLs), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ta_get_location_photos or ta_get_location_reviews.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., after search to get full details). The description implies it retrieves details for a known locationId, but does not state alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the output (URLs, source, dimensions) and pagination support. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description aligns with those without contradiction.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and key return data. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with good annotations and a self-documenting schema, the description provides sufficient context about output and pagination. It could be improved by noting the necessity of locationId from a search, but schema already covers that.
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 description coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it only mentions pagination which is implied by page and size parameters.
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 action 'Get photos' and the resource 'TripAdvisor location', and specifies the returned data: 'multi-size image URLs, source, dimensions'. It also mentions pagination, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ta_get_location_details or ta_get_location_reviews.
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 retrieving photos, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tool names provide context, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining pagination behavior and the compact option for slim summaries. No contradictions; it supplements the annotations with practical usage details.
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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and resource, the second adds a key option. Ideal front-loading and efficiency.
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 9 parameters, one required, no output schema, and annotations present, the description provides a clear overview of functionality, return value (location id for detail tools), pagination, and the compact option. A minor gap is the lack of detail on full record structure, but the description is largely complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description adds a single extra tip about compact mode, which provides minor additional value beyond the schema.
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 searches TripAdvisor locations by name, specifies resource types (restaurants, attractions, hotels), and mentions return values (matches with location id and pagination). This is a specific verb-resource combination that helps the agent understand the tool's core function.
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 when searching by name and suggests using compact mode for slim summaries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings like ta_search_nearby or ta_get_locations. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, so guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and result variability. The description adds the compact mode option but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. With annotations doing most of the heavy lifting, the description contributes modest additional context.
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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.
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?
For a read-only spatial search tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers key search modes and output (distance, location id). However, it omits mention of pagination (page/size parameters) which is a minor gap given the tool's complexity.
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%, so individual parameter details are documented. The description adds value by grouping parameters into three search modes (lat+lon+radius, location_id+radius, bounding box) and explaining the compact flag, which helps the agent understand parameter combinations beyond the schema.
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's purpose: 'Find TripAdvisor locations near a point within a radius, or inside a bounding box.' It specifies the three search methods (lat+lon+radius, location_id+radius, bounding box) and what is returned (matches with distance and location id), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like ta_search_locations.
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 proximity search but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it's read-only and no auth required, consistent with annotations, and details the diagnostic outputs, enhancing transparency beyond structured fields.
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?
Description is efficient with three sentences. First sentence states action and outputs, second gives usage guidance, third declares safety. No redundant or excessive text.
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?
Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return values (role, port, version, RTT, hint). It also covers when to use and safety, making it complete for a diagnostic tool.
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?
No parameters present, so description naturally does not add parameter meaning. Baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 the tool round-trips a small public URL through the fetchproxy bridge and returns diagnostics. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling location tools.
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?
Explicitly states 'Call this when a real tool fails and you want to know which hop broke,' providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds valuable behavioral details: unknown/unlicensed ids are silently omitted, and compact:true returns slim summaries. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds critical context: batching, pricing, omission behavior, compact option.
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 no output schema, description mentions 'full records' vs 'slim summaries' but doesn't detail return format. Annotations cover safety/readonly. For a batch read tool, this is largely complete; could mention response structure but not critical.
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 good descriptions. Description adds meaning for 'compact' parameter ('slim summaries') and clarifies ids usage ('Pass an array of location ids'). Locale parameter not elaborated but schema covers it well. Overall adds value beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states 'Get details for MULTIPLE locations in one call (batch)', specifying verb, resource, and batching behavior. Distinguishes from sibling ta_get_location_details by noting it's a cheaper batch alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises when to use: 'cheaper than repeated ta_get_location_details'. Also covers edge cases: unknown/unlicensed ids silently omitted. Implicitly suggests using ta_get_location_details for single locations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: reads from public page via browser bridge, works without API key, does not return individual review text. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and description adds useful context.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately lists return fields, covers supported location types, and notes what it does not return. Complete for agent decision-making.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter locationId, and the description repeats the same description from the schema without adding new semantic meaning. 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 the tool gets core TripAdvisor location details by ID, listing specific fields, and distinguishes from sibling ta_get_location_details by noting it uses browser bridge and works without API key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says to use this tool when ta_get_location_details is unavailable or its key is blocked, providing clear context for when to use vs alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tripadvisor-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/tripadvisor-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/tripadvisor-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tripadvisor-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/tripadvisor-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chrischall/tripadvisor-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chrischall/tripadvisor-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server