Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pitchup.com MCP server

Pitchup.com MCP server

by dragosh29
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

API root

api_root
Read-only

Verifies your Pitchup API key and lists reachable resources, server environment, and API version, helping confirm access before reading campsite data.

Instructions

The resources this API key can reach (GET /rest/api/), plus which Pitchup environment and API version this server is using. A quick way to check the key works.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "api_root"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the response contents (reachable resources, environment, API version) and that the call doubles as a credential validity check, implying auth failure behavior.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the primary payload (what the endpoint returns) front-loaded ahead of the secondary use case.

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 zero-parameter, read-only root endpoint with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and why to call it. It could say slightly more about error/status behavior when a key is invalid, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and fully consistent with the description. Baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (returns/reveals) and resource set: the resources the API key can reach, plus the environment and API version. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all domain list/get tools (campsites, bookings, pricing).

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?

"A quick way to check the key works" gives a concrete use case, so the agent knows when to reach for it rather than a domain tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools