Polarsteps MCP Server

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes, but there is some overlap between get_trip and get_trip_log that could cause confusion. get_trip_log is described as an 'overview' with summarized steps, while get_trip provides 'comprehensive details', but the descriptions suggest using get_trip_log first before get_trip, which might lead to misselection if an agent needs just basic info versus full details. Other tools like get_user_profile, get_user_social, and get_user_stats are well-differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores, such as get_trip, get_trips, get_user_profile, and search_trips. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to understand for an agent.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a Polarsteps travel data domain. Each tool serves a specific purpose, from fetching user profiles and social info to retrieving trip details and searching, without feeling too sparse or overloaded. The count aligns well with the apparent scope of accessing travel history and user data.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key aspects of the Polarsteps domain, including user profiles, social information, statistics, and trip retrieval with search capabilities. However, there are minor gaps, such as no tools for updating or creating trips (e.g., create_trip or update_trip), which might limit full CRUD operations, but the existing tools support comprehensive read and search workflows effectively.
Average 3.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves profile data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address key behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., for invalid usernames), rate limits, or response format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by separating usage context). Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with one parameter. It specifies what data is retrieved but omits critical context such as authentication needs, error scenarios, or the structure of the returned profile overview. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more behavioral and response details are needed.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'username' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format constraints or examples). Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get a users' profile overview' with specific content details ('living location and their number of countries visited & trips'). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('profile overview'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_user_social' or 'get_user_stats' which might provide overlapping or related user information.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_user_social' or 'get_user_stats', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is retrieved but lacks details on behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. For a read operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence with specific details. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it more clearly (e.g., separating the list of information retrieved).
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?
Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what data is retrieved but doesn't cover behavioral aspects or usage context. With no output schema, it doesn't describe return values, which is a gap, but the description compensates somewhat by listing the information included.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'username' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format constraints or examples for 'username'). Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get a users' social information' with specific details about what information is retrieved (followers, followees, count, popularity status). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('social information'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_user_stats', which might also retrieve user-related data.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_user_stats', nor does it specify contexts or prerequisites for usage. The only implied usage is retrieving social data for a user, but there's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'available travel statistics' but doesn't specify if this requires authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavioral traits.
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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and value. The first sentence outlines the core functionality, and the second adds context without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured but avoids unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (read operation with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and high-level output ('statistics and metrics') but lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints, which are important for a tool without structured output documentation.
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%, with the parameter 'username' documented as 'The username of the Polarstep user to look for.' The description adds context by specifying it's for 'a Polarsteps user' and relates to 'travel history,' but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get available travel statistics and metrics for a Polarsteps user' with specific details like 'countries visited, total distance traveled, trip counts, and detailed travel analytics.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on statistics/analytics rather than trips or profiles, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 'getting a complete picture of someone's travel history and achievements,' suggesting it's for comprehensive analytics. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like get_user_profile or get_trips, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes the return format (summarized steps with specific fields), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior for large trips.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool returns, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary verbiage.
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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the return format and usage sequencing, but lacks information about error handling, response structure beyond field names, and behavioral constraints that would be important for an agent to use this 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'trip_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get an overview of the specific trip' with specific content details ('list of summarized steps, each including timestamp/title/description/location'). It distinguishes from potential siblings by focusing on summarized overview rather than detailed information, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 provides clear contextual guidance: 'Use this first for trip overviews before diving into detailed information.' This indicates when to use this tool (initial overview) versus alternatives (detailed information tools), though it doesn't explicitly name specific sibling tools or state when NOT to use it.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool fetches 'recent trips' with a default ordering ('most recent first') and a default parameter value, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on potential errors (e.g., invalid username), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing usage context and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without unnecessary repetition or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful for an agent to use it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the 'n_trips' parameter controls how many recent trips to retrieve and its default, but this is redundant with the schema's default and description. No additional semantic context is provided beyond what the 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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('list of a user's recent trips'), specifying what summary information is included (trip names, dates, duration, basic stats). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_trip' (singular) by emphasizing it retrieves multiple trips for browsing history, not detailed exploration.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Ideal for browsing someone's travel history or finding trip IDs for detailed exploration'), implying it's for summary-level data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings like 'search_trips' for filtered searches, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (comprehensive details including specific elements) and provides usage sequencing guidance, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior for the n_steps parameter.
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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first describes what the tool returns, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. Could be slightly more concise by combining elements, but overall efficient with zero wasted words.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks important contextual information. It doesn't describe the return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. The description compensates somewhat with detailed content listing, but doesn't fully address the gaps left by missing structured metadata.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'individual steps/locations' which relates to the n_steps parameter but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond the schema's description.
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 with specific verbs ('Get comprehensive details') and resources ('about a specific trip'), listing the exact data elements returned (summary, timeline, route information, steps/locations, weather data, engagement metrics). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_trip_log by specifying when to use each.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use after get_trip_log when you need detailed information about specific locations or comprehensive trip data.' This clearly differentiates it from get_trip_log and implies it's for more detailed information than basic trip listing tools like get_trips.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the fuzzy matching mechanism ('supports flexible search terms', 'approximate spelling or partial keywords'), search scope ('by name/title', 'destination', 'themes'), and that it's a search operation (implied read-only). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like result limits, sorting, or error conditions.
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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, provides specific examples, explains the fuzzy matching behavior, and ends with clear usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 moderate complexity (search operation with fuzzy matching), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential context. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and how the search works. The main gap is lack of information about return format or result structure, which would be helpful since there's no output schema.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about how 'name_query' works with fuzzy matching and examples of search terms, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search through a user's trips') and resources ('trips'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying fuzzy matching capabilities. It explicitly mentions what it searches (name/title, destination, themes) and how it works (fuzzy matching, partial matches).
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?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this as the first step when looking for specific trips by destination, theme, or name.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_trips for unfiltered listing), and specifies the ideal scenarios (finding trips by destination, theme, or partial name).
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![polarsteps-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/remuzel/polarsteps-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/remuzel/polarsteps-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/remuzel/polarsteps-mcp'

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