Visa Requirements: Most up-to-date visa requirements with color-coded status indicators covers 200.
List of destinations country codes Group: V2. Billing per call: 0 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses billing cost (0 credits) but not safety profile, return format, or any side effects. For a read-like tool, this is minimal disclosure.
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?
Two short sentences, both purposeful: the first states the purpose, the second billing. No wasted words, and the key info is front-loaded.
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 simple list tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what it returns (destinations country codes) but doesn't describe the format, pagination, or any caveats, leaving some uncertainty.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.
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 clearly states the tool lists destination country codes, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like post tools, though not from get_v2_passports, but the resource type is distinct enough.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List of passport country codes Group: V2. Billing per call: 0 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses billing (0 credits) and a V2 grouping, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authorization requirements, or output format. For a simple list tool, this is a moderate gap.
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 two short sentences, both delivering relevant info: purpose and billing. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned and the billing cost. It could mention that it is read-only, but 'List' implies that. Overall, adequately complete for its simplicity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to add beyond the empty input schema. The description focuses on the data resource, which is appropriate for a no-parameter tool, meeting the baseline for this case.
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 clearly states the tool returns a list of passport country codes. The phrase 'Group: V2' adds a categorization, and the resource 'passports' distinguishes it from siblings like get_v2_destinations.
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?
Usage is implied by the stated purpose: use it to get passport country codes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like get_v2_destinations, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show the visa requirements for Passport holder Group: V1. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| passport | No | ISO Alpha-2 country code | |
| destination | No | ISO Alpha-2 country code |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the operation is a 'show' (read-like) and adds billing cost per call, which is valuable. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication, or limits. This is adequate for a simple read, but not rich, earning a 3.
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 short and gets to the point, with two sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes cost info. However, the typo 'Bing' instead of 'Billing' and the awkward '1 Credits' reduce polish, preventing a perfect score.
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?
Given the simple tool scope, the description covers the basic function and cost, but omits context about the return format, the meaning of 'V1', and prerequisites. With no output schema or annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about expected output structure. It is adequate but not thorough, so a 3.
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?
The input schema already describes both parameters with examples, covering 100% of schema descriptions. The description does not add extra parameter information; it only references 'Passport holder Group: V1,' which is ambiguous but not a parameter explanation. Per guidelines, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, so this is earned.
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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Show the visa requirements for Passport holder Group: V1.' It clearly indicates the tool reports visa requirements, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like post_v2_visa_check. Thus it scores 4—clear but no sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or alternatives. It only states the tool's function and billing cost. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it, so it falls to 'no guidance' (score 2).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show the color of visa requirements for a Passport holder. Group: V1. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| passport | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'Show the color' but does not explain what the color represents, how the result is delivered, whether it is a map image or data, any prerequisites (e.g., passport format), or potential errors. Billing and group info are not behavioral transparency.
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 very short (three sentences), but two of those sentences are metadata ('Group: V1' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits') that are not core to the tool's operation. While concise, it forfeits crucial details; the structure is adequate but not front-loaded with the most important behavioral information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain how to interpret the output (what 'color' means), any limitations, or how it differs from similar tools. An agent could not reliably select and invoke this tool based solely on the description.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage, and the description only implies the 'passport' parameter by saying 'Passport holder.' It does not specify the expected format (e.g., ISO code, country name) or any constraints. The example 'US' in the schema is not referenced in the description, so the agent gets minimal guidance.
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 clearly states the tool's function: showing the color of visa requirements for a passport holder, matching the title MapColor. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like post_v2_visa_map or post_v2_visa_mapall, which likely have similar purposes, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other map-related siblings (e.g., post_v2_visa_map, post_v2_visa_mapall). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Make your custom passport index/rank Group: V2. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | JSON request body. Example: {"weights":{"Visa-free":2,"Visa on arrival":1,"Visa required":0,"eVisa":1,"eTA":1,"Tourist card":0,"Freedom of movement":3,"Not admitted":-1}} |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating. The phrase 'Make your custom' suggests a create operation, but the description does not elaborate on consequences or requirements.
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 extremely brief, consisting of one sentence plus billing info. While it is concise, it omits essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured.
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?
Given the presence of a nested object parameter and the complexity of a ranking system, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, the meaning of 'Group: V2', or how the weights are applied, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
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?
The schema includes a single 'body' parameter with an example of weights, but the description does not explain the meaning of these weights or how they influence the ranking. The tool description adds no value beyond the parameter's existence, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's role.
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 'Make your custom passport index/rank' which indicates creating a custom ranking, but it lacks specifics on what the tool actually does, such as the input format or the output. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name, though the intended purpose is somewhat discernible.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like post_v2_visa_check or post_v2_visa_map. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show visa rules for passport -> destination Group: V2. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | JSON request body. Example: {"passport":"CN","destination":"AE"} |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety and side effects. It mentions billing per call, which is useful, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what happens on invalid inputs. Missing critical behavioral context for a tool with no annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The billing mention is relevant. No unnecessary fluff, but could have included more behavioral context in the same space.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested object param, no output schema), the description is minimal but provides the essential purpose and billing. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, and usage guidelines, making it adequate but not thorough.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the 'body' parameter. The description adds the example structure in the schema itself, and the description does not add much beyond that. It does not clarify the expected format of passport and destination codes beyond the example.
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 clearly states the tool shows visa rules for a passport to destination, using 'Show' as a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Group: V2' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', but does not explicitly contrast with other visa-related tools like post_v2_visa_map.
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 implies usage by describing the function (show visa rules) and mentions the billing cost, but does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like post_v2_visa_map or post_v2_passport_rank_custom. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the color for the primary visa rule Group: V2. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | JSON request body. Example: {"passport":"CN"} |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a color and costs 1 credit per call, implying a read-only operation and providing billing context, but it does not mention authentication, errors, or side effects.
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?
Two short, purposeful sentences: the first states the tool's output and scope, the second states cost. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
The description covers the essential output type and cost, and the schema fills in the body example. However, with no output schema and no annotation context, it leaves ambiguity about request semantics and how this tool differs from the 'mapall' sibling.
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 100% and includes an example request body, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states that the tool returns a color for the primary visa rule Group V2. The verb 'Return' and the resource scope are specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling post_v2_visa_mapall.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over siblings like post_v2_visa_mapall or post_v2_visa_check. The usage is only implied by the purpose statement, with no exclusions 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.
Show data for map for all passports Group: V2. Billing per call: 1000 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 only adds billing information ('Billing per call: 1000 Credits') but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what response shape to expect, or what 'Group: V2' means.
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 short and includes an operationally useful billing note without unnecessary elaboration. The fragment 'Group: V2' reads awkwardly but does not add significant bulk.
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 zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: it states what data is returned and mentions cost. However, it lacks any explanation of the map data format, the meaning of 'Group: V2', or what distinguishes this endpoint from the similarly named post_v2_visa_map, leaving notable gaps in context.
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?
With zero parameters and fully covered schema, the description has no parameter details to compensate for. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description's mention of 'all passports' clarifies the scope of the invoked result.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names a clear resource ('data for map for all passports'), so the core purpose is understandable. However, 'Group: V2' is cryptic, and differentiation from sibling post_v2_visa_map is only implicit via 'all passports' rather than explicit.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus post_v2_visa_map, post_map, or the other sibling tools. The phrase 'for all passports' weakly implies a use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_v2_destinationsget_v2_passportspostpost_mappost_v2_passport_rank_custompost_v2_visa_checkpost_v2_visa_mappost_v2_visa_mapallClaiming 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 as io.github.acme/server also 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.json on 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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Visa & entry requirements for 199 passports, cited to official sources and re-verified daily.
Passport visa, entry & transit requirements for any country pair, with official government sources.
Visa Requirements MCP — passport visa rules for any nationality → destination pair
Plan trips and track visa days per traveller across 39,601 entry rules
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: 'post' and 'post_v2_visa_check' both show visa requirements, while 'post_map', 'post_v2_visa_map', and 'post_v2_visa_mapall' all return map-style visa information. The distinctions between V1 and V2 versions are not explained, making agents likely to select the wrong tool.
Tool names follow a loose 'method_version_entity' pattern but are inconsistent: 'post' and 'post_map' lack version suffixes and clear resource names, while others use long descriptive names like 'post_v2_passport_rank_custom' and 'post_v2_visa_mapall'. The mix of very short and verbose names is confusing.
With 8 tools, the server is reasonably scoped for a visa-requirements API. The count itself is appropriate, though some tools appear redundant due to V1/V2 duplication, which slightly reduces overall usefulness.
The tool set covers the core visa-check use case well: listing passports/destinations, checking visa rules, and generating maps/rankings. Minor gaps exist, such as batch or detailed visa-rule explanations, but agents can mostly complete standard tasks without dead ends.
