got-cosy-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| find_cosy_hotelsA | Find live, cosy-scored hotels from Got Cosy's cosiness index (gotcosy.com): hotels scored 0-10 for warmth, intimacy and character from photos and reviews. Only returns hotels that clear the public floor (score 5.0+). Optionally filter by city, country and a minimum cosy score. |
| get_hotel_feelingA | Get one hotel's cosy score, evidence signals and description from Got Cosy, by its slug (as returned in find_cosy_hotels' results, or from a gotcosy.com/en/hotels/ URL). Below-floor hotels return {below_bar:true} with no score exposed. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: one searches for hotels, the other retrieves details for a specific hotel. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow the verb_noun pattern with snake_case (find_cosy_hotels, get_hotel_feeling). The verbs 'find' and 'get' are semantically appropriate and consistent in style.
The server has only 2 tools, which is on the thin end of the scale. However, for a niche service focused on searching and retrieving hotel cosiness scores, this small count is acceptable, though it feels minimal.
The domain is covered by the core workflow: search for hotels with cosy scores, then get detailed information on a specific hotel. No obvious gaps are present, but the lack of additional query capabilities (e.g., listing all cities) is a minor limitation.