F
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenance22,000+ public facility data for foreign tourists in Seoul — restrooms, pharmacies, WiFi, AEDs, tourist info centers, and subway timetables. Bilingual (Korean/English).
-
korea-stay
by app.sallim
Server Details
Korean lodging: 84,490 stays from 4 government permit ledgers + KTO TourAPI, honest gaps
Ownership verified
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
4 toolsreport_issue답변 오류 신고AInspect
답이 틀렸을 때 신고하거나(kind='결함'), 남길 값이 있는 질문 원문을 기록한다(kind='질문기록').
**결함**: 사용자가 "틀렸다"·"이상하다"고 하면 **먼저 이 도구를 부른 뒤** 정정 답변을 하라.
추측으로 부르지는 말 것.
**질문기록**: 이 서버는 클라이언트가 이미 도구 호출로 번역한 뒤를 보므로 **사용자의 원문
질문을 볼 수 없다**. 그래서 어떤 질문이 실제로 오는지, 무엇을 못 답하는지가 계측에 안 잡힌다
— 이 프로젝트의 목적이 유통이 아니라 계측인데 정작 수요 축이 비어 있었다. 복합 질문·부분
답변·전제 오류 셋 중 하나면 원문(일반형으로 치환)을 남겨라. **개인 식별 조합은 반드시
일반형으로 바꿔서** 넣는다.
두 종류가 한 도구인 이유: 무인증 공개 서버라 쓰기 표면을 하나로 묶어 상한을 함께 건다
(CLAUDE.md 규칙 2). 시간당 상한도 공유한다.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | '결함'=답이 틀렸다는 신고(기본). '질문기록'=틀리진 않았지만 **질문 원문을 남길 값이 있는 경우** — 서버는 클라이언트가 번역한 도구 호출만 보고 원문 질문을 볼 수 없어서, 이게 유일한 통로다. **아무 질문이나 남기지 마라**: ①여러 도구를 엮어야 답이 된 복합 질문 ②우리 도구로 일부만 답한 질문(answered_fully=false) ③사용자의 전제가 틀려서 바로잡아야 했던 질문(예: '펜션'을 법적 업종명으로 알고 있던 경우) — 셋 중 하나일 때만. 단순 조회 한 건은 남기지 않는다 | 결함 |
| problem | No | 무엇이 틀렸는지. 사용자의 말을 그대로 옮겨도 된다. kind='결함'이면 필수, kind='질문기록'이면 비워도 된다. | |
| expected | No | 사용자가 맞다고 본 값 | |
| question | No | 사용자의 **원래 질문**(kind='질문기록'이면 필수). ⚠️ **개인 식별 조합은 일반형으로 치환해서 넣어라** — 이름·연락처·정확한 거주지·동행자 사연이 겹치면 그대로 적지 말 것(예: '○○동 △△빌라 사는 김□□, 부모님 팔순으로 속초 2박' → '가족 3인 속초 2박'). 무인증 공개 서버의 로그다 | |
| tool_used | No | 문제가 된 답을 만든 도구 | |
| wrong_value | No | 틀린 수치·문장 | |
| missing_axis | No | answered_fully=false일 때 **없어서 못 답한 축**(예: '실시간 빈방', '가격대 필터 없음', '반려동물 동반 가능 여부 미수록'). 로드맵과 수집 우선순위의 원천이 된다 | |
| answered_fully | No | kind='질문기록' 전용 — 이 서버 도구만으로 질문에 **완결된 답**을 했는가. false면 missing_axis에 무엇이 없었는지 적어라 |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even though annotations show mutability flags, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it writes to an unauthenticated public server, shares an hourly cap, cannot see the client's original question, and requires PII anonymization. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 bold headers and clear sections for the two modes. It is fairly long, but the complexity of a dual-purpose tool justifies the length; a short project-context aside could be trimmed but does not significantly hurt clarity.
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?
For a tool with 8 parameters and no required fields, the description supplies all missing decision logic: when to report defects, when to log questions, PII handling, shared rate limits, and how missing_axis feeds the roadmap. The output schema already covers return values, so no further detail is needed here.
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 input schema already covers all 8 parameters with rich descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces decision heuristics around kind and missing_axis but does not add parameter-level syntax or format details 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 names two specific actions—신고 (report defects) and 기록 (log original questions)—with the kind parameter distinguishing them. It is unmistakably different from the sibling stay_* tools, which are lookup/booking tools.
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 gives an explicit ordering rule: call this tool before issuing a correction, and warns against speculative calls ('추측으로 부르지는 말 것'). It also defines the three eligible conditions for question logging (complex, partial, false premise) and explains why both modes share one tool (rate limiting).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
stay_booking_link예약 페이지 링크ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
예약 가능한 원본 페이지로 가는 링크를 만든다.
이 서버는 예약을 처리하지 않는다 — 사용자를 원본 플랫폼으로 보낸다. 링크는 숙소명·주소로
만든 **검색 링크**이며 특정 객실의 예약 페이지가 아니다(그건 재고 어댑터가 붙어야 나온다).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stay_id | Yes | stay_search가 준 stay_id | |
| platform | No | 어느 플랫폼 검색으로 보낼지 | naver |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: the tool only generates a search link, does not process bookings, and link construction is based on property name/address. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile.
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 short paragraphs that front-load the core action and provide essential distinctions in each sentence. No filler or 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?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, limitations, and link type sufficiently. The presence of an output schema means return format need not be described.
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 detailed parameter descriptions (stay_id from stay_search, platform enum with default). Description adds no extra parameter information, so baseline score of 3 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?
Description explicitly states it creates a link to the original booking-enabled page, clarifies it is a search link (not a specific room reservation page), and contrasts with inventory adapter needs, distinguishing it from siblings like stay_search and stay_detail.
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?
Provides clear when-to-use (when needing to send users to the original platform) and when-not-to-use (does not handle reservations, not for specific room pages, which require inventory adapter). This explicit exclusion clarifies boundaries despite not naming sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
stay_detail숙소 상세ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
숙소 하나의 상세 정보와 재고를 조회한다. 재고 실시간 재확인은 여기서만 한다.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guests | No | ||
| checkin | No | 체크인 YYYY-MM-DD | |
| stay_id | Yes | stay_search가 준 stay_id (예: tourapi:2671267) | |
| checkout | No | 체크아웃 YYYY-MM-DD |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that inventory is checked in real-time, which is not captured by readOnlyHint or idempotentHint. It also implies a single-stay scope. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence and a critical caveat in the second. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool has an output schema, so return format is covered elsewhere. The description provides the key differentiator (real-time inventory recheck) and indicates a single-stay query. It could mention more about when to call it, but given the schema and annotations, it is adequately complete for correct selection and invocation.
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 already documents most parameters (stay_id, checkin, checkout) with descriptions, leaving only 'guests' undocumented. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter usage or how they affect inventory queries, so it adds little beyond the schema. With 75% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 explicitly states the tool queries detailed information and inventory for one accommodation ('숙소 하나의 상세 정보와 재고를 조회한다'), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that real-time inventory rechecking is only done here ('재고 실시간 재확인은 여기서만 한다'), which differentiates it from stay_search and stay_booking_link.
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 phrase '재고 실시간 재확인은 여기서만 한다' provides explicit guidance to use this tool for real-time inventory verification, indicating a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives for other purposes, but the unique purpose is clearly implied. Sibling tool names provide additional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
stay_search숙소 검색ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
조건에 맞는 국내 숙소를 찾는다.
**재고를 확인하지 못한 숙소를 결과에서 지우지 않는다.** availability가 unknown이면
빈방 여부를 모른다는 뜻이고, 만실이라는 뜻이 아니다. 사용자에게 그렇게 전달하라.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 반환 개수 (최대 50) | |
| guests | No | 인원 | |
| region | No | 지역. '강원 속초', '서울 마포구'처럼 시도+시군구. 정식명·구명·약칭 다 받는다('제주도'='제주'='제주특별자치도'). 행정구역 어휘와 대조해 걸고, 어휘에 없는 말(읍·면·동·도로명)은 주소 부분문자열로 내려간다 — 어느 쪽이었는지는 meta.region_matched_on에 적힌다. 0건이면 복구 경로가 meta.unapplied_conditions로 **반드시** 오고, 다시 걸 이름을 댈 수 있을 때만 meta.region_retry가 함께 온다(0건 = '없다'가 아니다). region_retry는 질의가 건 시도 안의 이름만 담는다. **로마자는 시도만 받는다**('Seoul'·'Jeju-do'는 통하고 'Gangnam'은 안 통한다) — 시군구 이하는 한글로 써라 | |
| checkin | No | 체크인 YYYY-MM-DD. 주면 재고 조회를 시도한다 — 지난 날짜면 재고는 조회하지 않는다(목록은 그대로 나온다) | |
| category | No | 숙소 종류 | |
| checkout | No | 체크아웃 YYYY-MM-DD |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results with unverified inventory are deliberately kept, availability=unknown means 'unknown,' not 'sold out,' and the agent is explicitly instructed to convey this to the user. This complements the openWorldHint and reveals a critical interpretation rule the agent would otherwise violate. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two sentences with the purpose front-loaded first and the critical behavioral caveat set in bold immediately after. There is zero redundancy with the annotations or schema, and every sentence earns its place. It is efficient rather than sparse, though the purpose statement is minimal and could have elaborated on scope without harm.
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 complexity (6 optional params, natural-language region matching with fallback semantics, inventory-dependent behavior) and the existence of a rich schema plus output schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious behavior: retention of unknown-inventory results and mandatory user communication. Return values are rightly delegated to the output schema. A minor gap is that the description does not mention that providing checkin triggers inventory lookup, though the schema covers it.
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 baseline of 3 applies. The schema descriptions are exceptionally rich — region accepts abbreviated/formal names, falls back to substring matching, records the match type in meta.region_matched_on, and enforces that romanization works only at the province level. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so no uplift is warranted.
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 a specific verb (찾는다/finds), a well-defined resource (국내 숙소/domestic accommodations), and a filtering condition (조건에 맞는/matching conditions). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings: stay_booking_link, stay_detail, and report_issue are booking, detail, and issue-reporting operations, not search. The title '숙소 검색' is meaningfully expanded with '국내' and '조건에 맞는' rather than just restated.
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 when to use the tool (when the user needs accommodations matching conditions), and the sibling names make the alternatives obvious. However, there is no explicit routing such as 'use stay_detail for a specific property' or 'use stay_booking_link once a property is chosen.' No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is given, leaving tool selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- Changed
stay_search1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / region / descriptionPrevious value: -"지역. '강원 속초', '서울 마포구'처럼 시도+시군구. 정식명·구명·약칭 다 받는다('제주도'='제주'='제주특별자치도'). 행정구역 어휘와 대조해 걸고, 어휘에 없는 말(읍·면·동·도로명)은 주소 부분문자열로 내려간다 — 어느 쪽이었는지는 meta.region_matched_on에 적힌다. 0건이면 다시 걸 이름이 meta.region_retry로 온다(0건 = '없다'가 아니다). **로마자는 시도만 받는다**('Seoul'·'Jeju-do'는 통하고 'Gangnam'은 안 통한다) — 시군구 이하는 한글로 써라"New value: +"지역. '강원 속초', '서울 마포구'처럼 시도+시군구. 정식명·구명·약칭 다 받는다('제주도'='제주'='제주특별자치도'). 행정구역 어휘와 대조해 걸고, 어휘에 없는 말(읍·면·동·도로명)은 주소 부분문자열로 내려간다 — 어느 쪽이었는지는 meta.region_matched_on에 적힌다. 0건이면 복구 경로가 meta.unapplied_conditions로 **반드시** 오고, 다시 걸 이름을 댈 수 있을 때만 meta.region_retry가 함께 온다(0건 = '없다'가 아니다). region_retry는 질의가 건 시도 안의 이름만 담는다. **로마자는 시도만 받는다**('Seoul'·'Jeju-do'는 통하고 'Gangnam'은 안 통한다) — 시군구 이하는 한글로 써라"
1 tool update
- Changed
stay_search2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / checkin / descriptionPrevious value: -"체크인 YYYY-MM-DD. 주면 재고 조회를 시도한다"New value: +"체크인 YYYY-MM-DD. 주면 재고 조회를 시도한다 — 지난 날짜면 재고는 조회하지 않는다(목록은 그대로 나온다)" - changed
Input schema / properties / region / descriptionPrevious value: -"지역. '강원 속초', '서울 마포구'처럼 시도+시군구. 정식명·구명·약칭 다 받는다('제주도'='제주'='제주특별자치도'). 행정구역 어휘와 대조해 걸고, 어휘에 없는 말(읍·면·동·도로명)은 주소 부분문자열로 내려간다 — 어느 쪽이었는지는 meta.region_matched_on에 적힌다. 0건이면 다시 걸 이름이 meta.region_retry로 온다(0건 = '없다'가 아니다)"New value: +"지역. '강원 속초', '서울 마포구'처럼 시도+시군구. 정식명·구명·약칭 다 받는다('제주도'='제주'='제주특별자치도'). 행정구역 어휘와 대조해 걸고, 어휘에 없는 말(읍·면·동·도로명)은 주소 부분문자열로 내려간다 — 어느 쪽이었는지는 meta.region_matched_on에 적힌다. 0건이면 다시 걸 이름이 meta.region_retry로 온다(0건 = '없다'가 아니다). **로마자는 시도만 받는다**('Seoul'·'Jeju-do'는 통하고 'Gangnam'은 안 통한다) — 시군구 이하는 한글로 써라"
1 tool update
- Changed
stay_search1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / region / descriptionPrevious value: -"지역. '강원 속초', '서울 마포구'처럼 시도+시군구. 행정구역 어휘와 대조해 걸고, 어휘에 없는 말(읍·면·동·도로명)은 주소 부분문자열로 내려간다 — 어느 쪽이었는지는 meta.region_matched_on에 적힌다"New value: +"지역. '강원 속초', '서울 마포구'처럼 시도+시군구. 정식명·구명·약칭 다 받는다('제주도'='제주'='제주특별자치도'). 행정구역 어휘와 대조해 걸고, 어휘에 없는 말(읍·면·동·도로명)은 주소 부분문자열로 내려간다 — 어느 쪽이었는지는 meta.region_matched_on에 적힌다. 0건이면 다시 걸 이름이 meta.region_retry로 온다(0건 = '없다'가 아니다)"
1 tool update
- Changed
stay_search1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / region / descriptionPrevious value: -"지역. '강원 속초', '서울 마포구'처럼 시도+시군구"New value: +"지역. '강원 속초', '서울 마포구'처럼 시도+시군구. 행정구역 어휘와 대조해 걸고, 어휘에 없는 말(읍·면·동·도로명)은 주소 부분문자열로 내려간다 — 어느 쪽이었는지는 meta.region_matched_on에 적힌다"
4 tool updates
- First observed
report_issue - First observed
stay_booking_link - First observed
stay_detail - First observed
stay_search
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Official Korean apartment sale prices (MOLIT). Clean JSON, data global models cannot know — paid pe…
Korean real estate: court auctions, 10M+ MOLIT records, subscription notice facts, loan/DSR rules
Korean business registry, corporate info, parcel tracking, validation APIs
Korean tax-office and fair-trade registries, HS codes, landed cost. Two tools need no API key.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceExposes public agency dining expense data from Korean public institutions, enabling AI agents to search, rank, and retrieve details of tax-funded restaurant visits with transparency links and KakaoMap deep links.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI to query real-time Korean public data including weather, real estate prices, air quality, economic indicators, and business registration via natural language.1MIT
FieldCure PublicData.Krofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceKorean public data API gateway that enables searching, inspecting, and calling 80,000+ data.go.kr APIs (weather, real estate, air quality, etc.) via natural language.MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are largely distinct: search finds stays, detail shows one, booking_link generates a referral URL, and report_issue handles feedback. The single ambiguity is report_issue combining two kinds (defect and question logging), but its descriptions clarify the usage.
Naming Consistency3/5
Three tools follow a stay_ prefix pattern (stay_search, stay_detail, stay_booking_link), but report_issue breaks the convention and uses a separate prefix. The structure is mixed (verb, noun, compound) though still readable.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is well-scoped for a referral service: search, detail, link generation, and issue reporting. Each tool has a clear role with no redundancy or missing essentials.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the core journey (find, view, link out) and adds issue tracking. It lacks direct booking or availability filtering, but that is intentionally delegated to external platforms, so the coverage is reasonable for the stated purpose.