Korea Tourism API MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: finding accommodations, searching by keyword, by area, by location, getting details, images, area codes, and festivals by date. No overlapping responsibilities.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: find_accommodations, find_nearby_attractions, get_area_codes, get_detailed_information, etc. The pattern is uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a tourism API. It covers search, filters, details, images, area codes, and festivals without being overly large or minimal.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the major discovery and detail retrieval needs: by area, keyword, location, festivals, accommodations, and details/images. Minor gap: no tool for user reviews or itineraries, but core workflows are supported.
Average 4.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 18, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the search behavior, parameters, and return structure but does not explicitly state read-only nature, error handling, or potential side effects. Additional context like empty result handling is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (intro, args, returns, example) and uses bullet points and code blocks. While it is relatively lengthy, every part serves a purpose without redundancy, earning a high score for structure.
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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive coverage: all parameters explained, return structure defined, and example usage. It fulfills the contextual needs for an AI 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.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter: start_date format, end_date optionality, area_code with all valid values, language support, pagination limits, and filter whitelist behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 'Find festivals in Korea by date range' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like find_accommodations and search_tourism_by_keyword by focusing on date-based festival searches.
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 explains the tool is useful for finding cultural events by date range but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives from sibling tools. The usage context is implied but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.
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?
No annotations provided, but the description discloses it is a read-only search (find accommodations) and details the return structure, pagination, and filter behavior. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but covers key behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with Args, Returns, and Example sections, front-loading the purpose. It is somewhat lengthy due to full return structure, but each sentence adds value given the number of parameters and output detail.
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?
The description covers all 6 parameters, their valid values, default values, return structure, and includes an example. However, it does not explain the relationship between area_code and sigungu_code or error conditions, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it lists all valid area codes with locations, supported languages, explains filter as a whitelist, and provides default values and constraints (max rows). This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 finds accommodations in Korea by area, listing specific types (hotels, guesthouses, pensions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_nearby_attractions and search_tourism_by_keyword by focusing on accommodation listings with area codes.
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 provides valid values for area_code and language, and explains the filter parameter, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_tourism_by_keyword or get_tourism_by_area. Usage is implied but not directly stated.
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?
No annotations exist; description discloses param behavior and return structure but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. Adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, example). Slightly repetitive of defaults from schema but still efficient and front-loaded.
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 8 params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete—includes full return structure, param details, and example. Covers pagination and filtering thoroughly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet description fully details each parameter with types, defaults, valid values (e.g., content_type list, filter whitelist logic), adding extensive 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?
Clearly states 'Find tourism attractions near a specific location in Korea' with a specific verb and resource, explicitly distinguishing it from siblings like find_accommodations.
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?
Provides clear context for use ('useful for finding nearby attractions when you know a specific location'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like get_tourism_by_area.
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?
With no annotations, the description shoulders the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates it's a read operation, describes pagination, language options, filter behavior, and the exact return structure, providing comprehensive transparency beyond implicit expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example) and front-loaded purpose. However, it is verbose, especially in listing all area codes and language options. A more concise format (e.g., referring to enums) could improve efficiency without losing information.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all needed context: parameter details, return structure, pagination, and an example. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lacks enum values and descriptions for parameters like content_type and area_code. The description supplies all valid values and default behaviors (e.g., filter whitelist logic), adding immense value beyond the schema. All 7 parameters are thoroughly explained.
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 searches for tourism information in Korea by keyword, specifying the database (Korea Tourism Organization) and the broad scope of tourism items. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a keyword-based general search, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus other tools like 'find_accommodations' or 'get_tourism_by_area'. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation (retrieve, browse) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, non-destructive, or any auth requirements. The return structure is documented, but side effects or permissions are not disclosed.
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 well-structured with a clear overview, followed by detailed parameter docs, return structure, and an example. It is front-loaded with purpose and each section adds valuable information without redundancy.
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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, each parameter's valid values and defaults, pagination, response structure, and an example. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by enumerating valid values for area_code, sigungu_code, content_type, language, and explaining defaults, optionality, and the effect of the filter parameter. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 tourism items by geographic area, using specific verb 'browse tourism information' and resource 'by geographic areas'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_nearby_attractions (location-based) and search_tourism_by_keyword (keyword-based) by focusing on area-based filtering.
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 the tool's use for area-based browsing and lists filtering options, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context of sibling tools implies differentiation, but explicit usage guidelines are missing.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains retrieval behavior, return structure, pagination, defaults, and available codes without omissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections, but includes a long list of area codes and examples. No wasted sentences, though slightly lengthy.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description provides a full return dict structure. It covers all parameters, defaults, limits, and examples, making it complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by detailing each parameter's behavior, language options, and pagination defaults, plus the return structure.
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 states 'Get area codes for regions in Korea' with a clear verb and resource. It explains top-level and sub-area retrieval, distinguishing from sibling tourism 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?
The 'Args' section and examples explain when to use parent_area_code (None for top-level, provided for sub-areas). However, it lacks explicit 'use this when not' and alternatives, though sibling tools are clearly different.
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?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses the return structure with all fields and image URLs, providing good transparency. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only image retrieval tool, the behavioral context is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections and an example, but is somewhat lengthy due to the return schema. It remains clear and organized, with no superfluous sentences.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description compensates fully by including a complete return schema, parameter details, and an example. It covers all necessary aspects for correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides full semantic detail for all 4 parameters: content_id source, language options with codes, page and rows with defaults and constraints. This adds essential 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 clearly states it retrieves images for a specific tourism item by content ID, providing original and thumbnail URLs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_tourism_by_keyword or get_detailed_information by focusing on image retrieval.
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 this tool is used after obtaining a content ID from other search functions. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear and the usage intent is well-defined.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description covers the retrieval nature and output structure comprehensively. It does not mention any side effects, authentication, or constraints, but for a simple read-oriented tool the transparency is adequate.
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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Example sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description provides a detailed return structure with nested fields and an example call. All three parameters are fully explained, and the tool's behavior (combining common info, introduction, additional info) is explicitly stated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only types and nullability with 0% description coverage. The description adds full semantics: content_id's purpose and source, content_type's valid values (8 options), and language's supported codes. This exceeds what schema offers.
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 detailed information about a specific tourism item in Korea by content ID, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools that search or list items.
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 mentions the content_id is obtained from other search functions, implying a usage sequence. However, it does not explicitly list when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_accommodations or search_tourism_by_keyword.
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:

[![mcp-korea-tourism-api MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/harimkang/mcp-korea-tourism-api/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/harimkang/mcp-korea-tourism-api)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-korea-tourism-api MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/harimkang/mcp-korea-tourism-api/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/harimkang/mcp-korea-tourism-api)

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/harimkang/mcp-korea-tourism-api'

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