A
license-
qualityC
maintenanceProvides mortgage calculation tools, including monthly payment, amortization schedules, lump sum payments, and extra monthly payments for real estate agents and AI assistants.
MIT
mortgage-tools
Server Details
Australian mortgage tools: repayment & borrowing-power calculators, guidance & enquiry capture.
- 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 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the mortgage process: repayment calculation, Costco eligibility, loan type comparison, enquiry submission, borrowing power estimation, and rate guidance. There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., calculate_repayments, check_costco_eligibility, compare_loan_types), using lowercase with underscores.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a mortgage advisory server, covering key pre-application steps without being overly large or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the core pre-application workflow: calculation, borrowing power, rate guidance, comparison, eligibility, and enquiry. A minor gap is the lack of tools for existing loan management or detailed offer comparison.
Available Tools
6 toolscalculate_repaymentsAInspect
Estimate monthly & fortnightly principal-and-interest repayments and total interest for a home/personal loan scenario. Indicative only — not a quote.
Args:
principal: Loan amount in AUD (e.g. 500000).
annual_rate_pct: Annual interest rate as a percentage (e.g. 6.5).
term_years: Loan term in years (e.g. 30).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| principal | Yes | ||
| term_years | Yes | ||
| annual_rate_pct | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses the result is indicative only, which is relevant, but does not mention any side effects, speed, or error handling. This is minimal but acceptable for a calculation tool.
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 concise with two sentences plus a docstring. It front-loads the purpose and parameters efficiently. However, the parameter descriptions could be integrated into the JSON schema for better structure.
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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not detail the output structure beyond naming the computed values (monthly/fortnightly repayments, total interest). For a simple calculation, this is nearly sufficient but leaves some ambiguity about the response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have clear definitions and examples in the description (e.g., principal in AUD, annual_rate_pct as percentage). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates and provides meaning beyond the schema types.
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 estimates monthly and fortnightly repayments and total interest for a loan scenario. It distinguishes from sibling tools like estimate_borrowing_power and compare_loan_types by focusing on repayment calculation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions it's indicative and not a quote, but does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclude other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_costco_eligibilityAInspect
Check eligibility for the Costco partner service and Shop Card reward (Executive membership + a settled loan). Indicative check only.
Args:
is_costco_member: Whether the person holds a current Costco membership.
membership_type: e.g. "Executive" or "Gold Star" (optional).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| membership_type | No | ||
| is_costco_member | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states it is an 'indicative check only,' hinting at non-definitive results. It could be more explicit about data handling or read-only nature, but is reasonably transparent.
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 concise, with a clear two-paragraph structure. The Args section is integrated efficiently. Could be slightly more compact, but no wasted sentences.
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 tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify the return value (e.g., boolean or eligibility status). It does not, leaving agents to guess the output format. Otherwise, it covers input parameters and purpose adequately.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section explains both parameters with examples ('Executive' or 'Gold Star'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 checks eligibility for the Costco partner service and Shop Card reward, specifying conditions (Executive membership + settled loan). It is distinct from sibling tools like calculate_repayments or create_enquiry.
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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool, and sibling tools are sufficiently different to imply appropriate usage. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compare_loan_typesAInspect
List Manage Your Loans' loan categories with what each is for and a link. Use to help a user pick which loan type fits their situation.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only listing operation with no side effects, which is transparent. Could mention auth requirements but not critical for this simple tool.
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 tightly worded sentences, no superfluous content. The purpose and usage are front-loaded.
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 listing tool with no parameters or output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its purpose, and when to use it. No gaps identified.
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?
With no input parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing parameter-specific because none exist. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so no need for compensation.
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 lists loan categories with their purpose and a link, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_repayments' by focusing on category comparison.
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 description explicitly says 'Use to help a user pick which loan type fits their situation,' providing clear context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling tools implicitly cover other actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_enquiryAInspect
Submit a mortgage enquiry to Manage Your Loans on the customer's behalf so a broker contacts them. ONLY call this after the person has explicitly agreed to be contacted — pass consent=true. Do not invent details; ask the user.
Args:
firstName: Customer's first name.
lastName: Customer's last name.
email: Customer's email address.
phone: Australian phone number (04.., 02/03/07/08.., or 1300/1800).
consent: MUST be true — the customer's explicit agreement to be contacted.
loanType: e.g. "Home Loan", "Refinance", "Investment Property" (optional).
loanAmount: Approximate loan amount, free text (optional).
message: Anything else the customer wants the broker to know (optional).
isCostco: True if this is a Costco-member enquiry.
costcoMembershipNumber: Costco membership number if provided (optional).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| phone | Yes | ||
| consent | Yes | ||
| message | No | ||
| isCostco | No | ||
| lastName | Yes | ||
| loanType | No | ||
| firstName | Yes | ||
| loanAmount | No | ||
| costcoMembershipNumber | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description partially covers behavioral traits: it implies a write operation and emphasizes consent. However, it does not disclose error handling, idempotency, or the consequences of missing consent, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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-organized with a clear lead sentence followed by a parameter list. It is not overly verbose, but some parameter descriptions (e.g., firstName) are slightly redundant with the field name.
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?
Given the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers arguments well but omits return value or success/failure indicators. It also does not mention prerequisites like authentication, leaving the completion incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial meaning beyond the empty schema: it explains phone format requirements, consent requirement, optionality, and the purpose of isCostco. The schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.
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 submits a mortgage enquiry on behalf of the customer, and the sibling tools (calculate_repayments, check_costco_eligibility, etc.) are distinct, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when to call this tool ('after the person has explicitly agreed to be contacted') and provides a critical condition ('pass consent=true'). It also warns against inventing details, giving clear usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
estimate_borrowing_powerAInspect
Estimate indicative borrowing capacity, assessed at a buffered rate (APRA +3% serviceability buffer). A rough proxy for guidance — a broker models real capacity across 30+ lenders. Not credit assistance.
Args:
annual_income: Gross annual household income in AUD.
monthly_expenses: Average monthly living expenses in AUD.
existing_monthly_debt: Existing monthly loan/card commitments in AUD.
interest_rate_pct: Assumed product interest rate (buffer is added on top).
term_years: Loan term in years.
deposit: Cash deposit available in AUD (added to the purchase budget).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deposit | No | ||
| term_years | No | ||
| annual_income | Yes | ||
| monthly_expenses | Yes | ||
| interest_rate_pct | No | ||
| existing_monthly_debt | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the buffered rate (APRA +3%) and states it is not credit assistance. With no annotations, this is helpful but does not fully disclose assumptions or limitations beyond the buffer.
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 front-loaded with the purpose and key constraints, followed by a clear parameter list. It is informative without being verbose.
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?
While the input parameters are thoroughly described, the description omits any information about the output format or return values, which is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides an Args list explaining each parameter's meaning and units in plain language, adding significant value beyond the schema titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it estimates indicative borrowing capacity and labels it as a rough proxy. It distinguishes from broker-assisted real capacity but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tool names like 'calculate_repayments' or 'get_rate_guidance'.
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 description notes it is 'a rough proxy for guidance' and 'Not credit assistance,' providing clear context for use. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when to choose this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_rate_guidanceAInspect
Explain how Australian home-loan rates are determined and the next step. Manage Your Loans does not publish live rates; a broker compares them for a specific scenario.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently states the tool's informational nature and its limitation: it does not publish live rates. No side effects or contradictions.
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, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose.
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 no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and limitations. It explains what the user gets (an explanation) and what not (live rates).
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter info, but none is needed.
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 explains how Australian home-loan rates are determined and the next step. It distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it does not publish live rates, which sets it apart from tools like calculate_repayments or compare_loan_types.
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?
It provides clear context that the tool is for explanation, not for obtaining live rates. However, it could more explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_loan_types' or 'calculate_repayments'.
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-qualityCmaintenanceEstimates UK repayment mortgage payments, including monthly payment, total interest, and overpayment impact, for use in ChatGPT.
- Alicense-qualityAmaintenanceMortgage Calculator AI - MCP server providing AI-powered tools and automation by MEOK AI Labs6MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceUK mortgage calculators from Fox Davidson, FCA-authorised mortgage brokers: UK stamp duty (SDLT/LBTT/LTT) and FCA MCOB 3A high net worth mortgage qualification.230MIT