LocalPro MCP Serverofficial
A
license-
qualityB
maintenanceProvides verified local trade and service business data (e.g., radon mitigation, foundation repair) to AI agents via tools like search_providers and list_niches.
1
MIT
service-provider-index
by ai.fugentic
Server Details
Find verified businesses & service providers by trade and area. Returns structured provider data.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool performs a distinct function: finding providers by criteria, fetching details by ID, and listing available trades. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in camelCase, making the purpose clear and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools are perfectly scoped for a service provider index, covering search, detail retrieval, and trade listing without bloat or deficiency.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain: discovering available trades, searching for providers, and retrieving full details. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
3 toolsfind_providersARead-onlyInspect
Find service providers by trade and/or area. Area can be a city name or region name. Returns business info: name, trade, trades, region, company size, target audiences, website, and description.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | City, region, or postal code the provider must serve, e.g. 'København' or '2100' | |
| trade | No | Trade to search for, e.g. 'VVS-installatør' or 'Elektriker' |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds a list of returned fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, limits, or auth needs. It provides some context but minimal beyond the annotation.
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 sentences: first states purpose, second lists return fields. No redundancy, efficient, and front-loaded.
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?
The description lists return fields but lacks details on whether results are an array, ordering, or behavior when both parameters are omitted. Without an output schema, it should be more explicit about the response structure.
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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description reiterates that area can be a city or region name, which adds slight clarity but does not significantly enhance semantic meaning 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 states the tool finds service providers by trade and/or area, using a specific verb 'find' and resource 'providers'. It differentiates from siblings 'get_provider' and 'list_trades' by indicating it searches for multiple providers based on criteria.
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 use for searching by trade/area but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not guidance. It lacks alternatives or exclusions, so it meets only a basic clarity level without explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_providerARead-onlyInspect
Fetch full details for a single provider by its ID.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Provider ID, e.g. 'dk-001' |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds 'full details' but does not disclose error behavior or data freshness. Not contradictory.
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?
Single sentence with no redundant words, directly states the tool's purpose and key constraint.
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?
For a simple one-parameter fetch tool without output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what it does and what the input is, though could mention that it returns the provider object.
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 coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter described with an example. The description adds no additional parameter guidance 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'provider', with the key constraint 'by its ID'. It distinguishes from siblings 'find_providers' and 'list_trades' which suggest search or listing.
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 use when you have a specific provider ID, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs its siblings, nor 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.
list_tradesARead-onlyInspect
Return all trades and service categories available in the index (e.g. VVS-installatør, Elektriker). Call this first if you are unsure which trade term to use when searching.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds context about the returned data (list of trades and categories). No contradictions. Adequate behavioral disclosure for a read-only tool with no destructive potential.
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 concise sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with action and examples, earning its length.
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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description fully informs an agent about what the tool does and when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%, so description does not need to add param info. Baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool returns all trades and service categories, with concrete examples. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating when to use this tool (uncertainty about trade term).
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this first if you are unsure which trade term to use when searching', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but sibling tools are listed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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 Servers
- Flicense-qualityBmaintenanceRetrieves vetted Local Services Ads businesses (Google Guaranteed or Screened) as clean JSON for any service and US city, enabling lead generation, local SEO monitoring, and competitor tracking.
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceCountry-agnostic MCP-callable directory for AI agents to find local SMBs — realtors, insurance agents, medical practitioners — by category, location, or natural-language query. Returns business catalog data and UTM-tagged booking URLs (zero PII).5MIT
- Flicense-quality-maintenanceSearch for local businesses worldwide. Structured data optimized for AI agents. • Search Millions of businesses over 49 countries (Europe, Northamerica, Southamerica, Asia, Oceania) • Quality & demand scoring for every business • Ranking based on real user click-through data • No API key needed, free access • Rate limit: 500 requests/hour per IP