TradeBasis: Canadian B2B vehicle appraisal SaaS info — product, Lite/Pro pricing, research briefs.
What TradeBasis is, the problem it solves, what makes it different, and who it's for. Returns static markdown with an as_of date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool returns static markdown with an as_of date, which is meaningful behavioral context. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden adequately. It could add more but is sufficient for a simple read-only tool.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant 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?
For a simple, zero-parameter informational tool, the description fully explains what it returns (static markdown) and the content scope (what, problem, differentiation, audience). It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it could optionally clarify the as_of date further.
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 schema is fully covered. The description appropriately does not need to explain parameters; baseline of 4 is justified.
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 what the tool does: it returns static markdown about TradeBasis, including the problem it solves, differentiation, and target audience. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like pricing and research library tools.
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 context is implied (use this for an overview of TradeBasis), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools tradebasis_pricing_and_tiers or tradebasis_research_library. 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.
TradeBasis subscription tiers — Lite ($99/mo CAD) vs Pro ($499/mo CAD): what each includes and who each is for. Static markdown.
| 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 burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'static markdown', indicating a read-only, fixed-content resource with no side effects or dynamic behavior. While it doesn't discuss authentication or caching, the static nature is a meaningful behavioral trait for a zero-risk tool.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main subject (TradeBasis subscription tiers) and compactly conveys the content details (what each includes, who each is for) and the format (static markdown). No wasted words.
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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete: it states the subject, the scope (Lite vs Pro), the content nature (includes and audience), and the format. No additional behavior or return value details are necessary.
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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 identifies the tool as providing TradeBasis subscription tier information (Lite vs Pro), including what each includes and who each is for, and explicitly notes it is static markdown. This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools tradebasis_about and tradebasis_research_library.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (tradbasis_about, tradebasis_research_library). The purpose is implied (pricing/questions), but no alternative boundaries or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Static research/market-report briefs authored by TradeBasis. Call with no arguments to list available briefs, or pass a topic (slug or title) to retrieve a single brief. Returns static markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Optional brief slug or title. Omit to list all available briefs. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the content is 'static' and 'returns static markdown,' which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It also explains the different behavior for list vs. retrieve, providing useful transparency beyond the bare minimum.
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 long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently covers both invocation modes and the return format.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: how to list vs. retrieve, what the parameter means, and what the return value looks like (static markdown). It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 fully describes the 'topic' parameter (brief slug or title, omit to list all briefs). The description repeats this information without adding new semantic details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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: providing static research/market-report briefs, with explicit instructions to list all briefs when called with no arguments or retrieve a single brief by topic. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (about, pricing) by its focus on research briefs.
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 usage direction: call with no arguments to list available briefs, or pass a topic (slug or title) to retrieve a specific brief. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tool names are sufficiently distinct that the use case is obvious.
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!
Vehicle valuations & market reports for AI assistants. Pay per report, no subscription.
Live Canadian vehicle listings, VIN decode and market valuations, province by province.
Instant Canadian scrap-car value quotes by year/make/model, provincial rates, and pickup leads.
Vehicle data for AI: VIN decoder, automotive specs, stolen checks, valuation and way more.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one provides general info about TradeBasis, one details subscription tiers, and one retrieves research briefs. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: the prefix 'tradbasis_' followed by a descriptive noun phrase (about, pricing_and_tiers, research_library). No mixing of conventions.
With 3 tools, the server is slightly minimal but still reasonable for an informational surface. Each tool has a clear role, and the count feels appropriate for the scope of providing static content.
The tool set covers the core informational needs (about, pricing, research) for the TradeBasis service. Some minor gaps exist (e.g., no FAQ or contact tool), but it is largely complete for its stated purpose.
