Change a recorded visa, or archive it by setting is_active to false.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| visa_id | Yes | ||
| cost_paid | No | ||
| is_active | No | ||
| visa_name | No | ||
| visa_type | No | ||
| issue_date | No | ISO date, e.g. 2026-08-01 | |
| expiry_date | No | ISO date, e.g. 2026-08-01 | |
| max_entries | No | ||
| visa_number | No | ||
| cost_currency | No | ||
| entries_allowed | No | ||
| application_date | No | ISO date, e.g. 2026-08-01 | |
| embassy_consulate | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation, non-destructive behavior, and idempotence. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: setting `is_active` to false archives the visa. It does not say whether omitted fields remain unchanged, but the archive mechanism is still a useful contribution beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one direct, front-loaded sentence. It avoids fluff and provides exactly the core action plus the most non-obvious archive behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It clarifies the archive path but omits update semantics for the 13 other fields, whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, and the observable result of archiving.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 21%. The description adds semantic meaning only for `is_active`; the remaining 13 parameters are left to their names and types, with no discussion of partial updates, defaults, or omitted-field behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete action ('Change') and a resource ('recorded visa'), and adds a distinct sub-operation for archiving via `is_active` set to false. This clearly distinguishes it from create_visa and delete_visa.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear usage context: the tool is for modifying an existing recorded visa, or archiving it by setting `is_active` to false. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'recorded visa' phrasing makes the appropriate scope obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., create_flight vs create_activity vs create_stay), and descriptions clarify overlaps like stay vs accommodation. The only potential confusion (create_activity covers travel legs) is explicitly explained, so misselection is unlikely.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using standard verbs: create, delete, get, list, search, set, update, add, remove, leave. Nouns are consistently singular and descriptive (passport, journey, stay, flight, accommodation). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
With 36 tools, the count is higher than typical, but the server covers a wide domain: journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas, documents, preferences, and sharing. Each entity has CRUD operations plus search and status, so the count is justified, though bordering on heavy.
The tool surface is remarkably complete: full CRUD for every entity (journeys, stays, activities, flights, accommodations, visas), user profile access (get_me), search utilities, sharing controls (join links, member management), and preferences. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps; even edge cases like deleting bookings before stays are handled.