Trade Basis Automotive Appraisal MCP
Server Details
TradeBasis: Canadian B2B vehicle appraisal SaaS info — product, Lite/Pro pricing, research briefs.
- 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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
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.
Available Tools
3 toolstradebasis_aboutAbout TradeBasisAInspect
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 | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the return format (static markdown) and mentions an 'as_of date', providing clarity on behavior. Since no annotations exist, this is a solid disclosure. It does not mention any destructive actions or auth needs, which are not expected for an about 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key information. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. No gaps identified.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no param details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 applies as no param information required.
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: provides an overview of TradeBasis, including its purpose, differentiation, and target audience. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pricing and research library by focusing on high-level context.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. However, as a simple informational tool with no parameters, usage is straightforward and unambiguous. The description implies it's suitable for getting started or background context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tradebasis_pricing_and_tiersTradeBasis Pricing & PlansAInspect
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 | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Static markdown', indicating the tool returns static content with no side effects. This is good behavioral disclosure given no annotations, though more details on authentication or update frequency could be added.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the purpose. 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?
For a simple static content tool with no parameters, the description is largely complete. It could note the return format or that it's a snapshot, but the 'Static markdown' phrase covers it well.
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?
No parameters in the input schema, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info.
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?
Description clearly states the tool provides information about TradeBasis subscription tiers, including pricing, features, and target audience. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tradebasis_about and tradebasis_research_library by being specifically about pricing plans.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It could mention using tradebasis_about for general info or tradebasis_research_library for research articles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tradebasis_research_libraryTradeBasis Research LibraryAInspect
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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description states it's static and returns markdown, which implies read-only behavior. Lacks details on error handling or what happens if topic is not found.
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?
Two efficient sentences covering purpose, usage, and output. No unnecessary 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. Could briefly mention error handling but not essential.
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% but description adds value by specifying 'slug or title' as input format, clarifying the parameter beyond schema.
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?
Describes exactly what the tool does: list all briefs or retrieve one by slug/title. Distinct from siblings 'tradepasis_about' and 'tradepasis_pricing_and_tiers'.
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?
Provides clear usage: 'Call with no arguments to list available briefs, or pass a topic...' but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.
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!