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.
Average 4.5/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The tool's purpose is uniquely defined within the server.
The single tool name 'check_property_constraints' follows a clear verb_noun pattern. There are no other names to contradict or mix conventions.
A single tool is minimal, but the server's stated purpose is narrow: checking a property against constraints. It feels slightly thin but not unreasonable for a specialized evaluation utility.
The tool covers the core domain of property constraint checking and explicitly preserves evidence, uncertainty, and not_found semantics. Missing UPRN/coordinate inputs and broader property data are minor gaps given the intended temporary, rate-limited evaluation use case.
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?
Even though readOnly/openWorld/idempotent are already in annotations, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is temporary, heavily rate-limited, rejects UPRNs/coordinates, and preserves evidence, uncertainty, and not_found_in_source semantics. Nothing in the description contradicts 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: accepted input, explicit exclusions, and result semantics. The most important operational warnings are front-loaded, and there is no 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 simple, read-only demo with no siblings, the description covers accepted input, exclusions, rate limits, and semantic preservation of results. The absence of an output schema means the exact return shape is not specified, but the stated semantics give enough orientation for correct invocation.
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 already documents both parameters, including the response_mode enum and default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the address parameter by excluding UPRNs and direct coordinates and requiring a postcode. response_mode is left to the schema, which is acceptable given its full documentation.
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 names the operation ('check English property planning constraints') and the description reinforces the input domain, but the description itself only calls it an 'evaluation' rather than explicitly stating what is being checked. There are no siblings, so no differentiation burden, but the purpose is fully clear only when title and description are read together.
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 explicitly says to use an address with a postcode and states that UPRNs and direct coordinates are not accepted, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. The temporary-demo and heavy-rate-limit warnings additionally signal that this should not be treated as a reliable production service.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
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!
