Evidence-backed English property screening for listed buildings, conservation areas, Article 4 directions, green belt and planning flood zones. Agents can evaluate through MCP and buy compact screens for 0.05 USDC via x402.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
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.
Average 3.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of tool confusion. The tool's purpose is clearly described.
The single tool name 'check_property_constraints' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and predictable.
With only one tool, the server is extremely thin for the apparent domain of property constraints verification. A typical server would offer more functionality, and this feels insufficiently scoped.
The tool covers only a single check operation and explicitly disallows UPRN and coordinate inputs, which are common in property data. There are no supplementary operations or alternative query methods, leaving significant gaps for a property constraints service.
check_property_constraintsDemo: check English property planning constraintsATemporary, heavily rate-limited evaluation using an address with postcode. UPRNs and direct coordinates are not accepted. Results preserve evidence, uncertainty and not_found_in_source semantics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | English property address containing a valid UK postcode | |
| response_mode | No | Response detail level; defaults to compact. Diagnostic mode is unavailable on the public demo. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context: heavy rate limiting, temporary nature, and that results preserve evidence, uncertainty, and not_found_in_source semantics. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 sentences and reasonably concise. However, it opens with limitations rather than the core purpose, which is slightly back-loaded. Still, every sentence adds value with no fluff.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It mentions that results preserve evidence, uncertainty, and not_found_in_source semantics, giving some idea of return behavior, but does not explain what planning constraints are returned or how success is represented. The tool is simple with only two parameters, so this moderate gap keeps it at 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra semantics by clarifying that UPRNs and direct coordinates are not accepted (address parameter) and that diagnostic mode is unavailable on the public demo (response_mode). This supplements the schema meaningfully.
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 title clearly states the tool checks English property planning constraints, providing the verb and resource. The description calls it an 'evaluation using an address with postcode,' which is somewhat vague on its own but combined with the title it is clear. No siblings exist, so differentiation is not required.
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 gives clear context: use with an address containing a postcode, and explicitly excludes UPRNs and direct coordinates. It also notes the tool is temporary and heavily rate-limited, indicating it is for demo purposes. Diagnostic mode is unavailable, which is a useful exclusion for the public demo.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
