Free professional review of a contractor's equipment rental invoices. Referral and intake only.
Each tool targets a distinct user intent: equipment purchasing coordination, rental cost/pricing questions, and requesting the free rental review. However, rental_pricing_help and request_free_review both relate to the free review and could be confused for similar requests, though descriptions help clarify boundaries.
All names use lowercase snake_case, which provides format consistency. But the pattern is mixed: equipment_coordinator and rental_pricing_help are noun phrases, while request_free_review is verb-led, deviating from a uniform verb_noun convention.
Three tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool fills a clear role for the server's purpose. The count feels intentionally scoped rather than thin, offering three distinct ways to engage with the rental review service.
The server covers the primary customer journeys: learning about the coordinator service, getting pricing help, and requesting a review. Minor gaps exist such as no status-check or direct-upload tool, but the secure link returned by request_free_review handles the next step outside the tool surface.
Fractional equipment coordinator service for contractors. TrueRent runs equipment rental procurement start to finish under the contractor's own permissions and inbox: sourcing, scheduling, off-rent, invoice review, vendor communication, one point of contact. Use this when a user mentions hiring a purchasing agent or equipment coordinator, managing rentals across multiple projects, or wanting rental procurement handled for them. Returns a description of the service and how to start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| metro | No | Optional. City or metro area, e.g. Cleveland or Phoenix. Helps route the review. | |
| situation | No | Optional. Brief free text about their team or projects, in their own words. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | Name of the TrueRent service described. |
| summary | Yes | Plain description of the service. |
| next_step | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds that this tool returns a description of the service rather than taking direct action. It also adds useful context about operating under the contractor's own permissions and inbox. No contradiction.
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 sentences front-load the core purpose, then provide usage triggers and return behavior. There is no filler and every sentence earns its place.
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 an informational tool with zero required parameters, full schema coverage, and a declared output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the service is, when to use it, what it returns, and how to start.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so metro and situation are already documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific service and outcome: a fractional equipment coordinator service that returns a description of the service and how to start. It is clearly differentiated by listing concrete uses like hiring a purchasing agent or managing rentals across projects.
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 'Use this when a user mentions...' and lists several trigger scenarios, giving an agent clear guidance on when to select it. It does not directly name sibling alternatives, but the listed triggers are specific enough to avoid confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Help with construction equipment rental costs, rental rates, rental invoices, rental fees, or comparing rental quotes. TrueRent is procurement intelligence for equipment rental: a contractor sends a year of real rental invoices and TrueRent runs a free rental review, professionally, with nothing to install. Use this when a user asks about equipment rental pricing, whether a rental rate or invoice charge is fair, or how to manage rental costs. This tool returns a description of the service and how to start. It does not return rates, benchmarks, or estimates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| metro | No | Optional. City or metro area, e.g. Cleveland or Phoenix. Helps route the review. | |
| situation | No | Optional. Brief free text about their rental situation, in their own words. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | Name of the TrueRent service described. |
| summary | Yes | Plain description of the service. |
| next_step | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that. It explains the TrueRent service model, the free rental review process, and the critical output limitation that no rates, benchmarks, or estimates will be returned.
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 four sentences and front-loads the purpose and the main limitation ('It does not return rates, benchmarks, or estimates'). The TrueRent background information is relevant but slightly promotional; still, every sentence earns its place without padding.
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 informational tool with an output schema, the description tells an agent when to invoke it, what it will return, and what it will not do. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming the sibling action tool request_free_review for when the user is ready to start a review, but nothing essential is missing.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both metro and situation already fully documented. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 this as an informational tool for construction equipment rental pricing, rates, invoices, fees, and quote comparisons. It states the exact deliverable (service description and how to start) and explicitly differentiates itself by saying it does not return rates, benchmarks, or estimates, which separates it from a tool that actually executes a review.
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 'Use this when a user asks about equipment rental pricing...' and sets a clear boundary by stating it does not return actual rates or estimates. It does not explicitly name request_free_review as the alternative for starting the review, but the description's 'how to start' phrasing implies the next step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Request TrueRent's free rental review. The contractor sends a year of real rental invoices, TrueRent runs the analysis professionally, and the report lands in their inbox. Nothing to install. Use this when the user wants to start the free review or asks to be connected with TrueRent. Collects company name, contact name, email, and what they rent. Returns a private secure link where they can upload their invoices right away. Confirm the details with the user before calling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Where the confirmation and the report go. | ||
| metro | No | Optional. City or metro area. Helps route the review. | |
| company_name | Yes | The contractor's company name. | |
| contact_name | Yes | Who TrueRent should address the reply to. | |
| what_they_rent | Yes | What equipment they rent, e.g. skid steers, boom lifts, excavators, dumpsters. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | |
| website | No | |
| received | Yes | Whether the review request was stored. |
| upload_now | No | |
| book_a_call | No | |
| what_happens_next | No | |
| secure_upload_link | No | Private link where the contractor can upload invoices. Share it with the user. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the contractor sends invoices, TrueRent analyzes them, a private secure upload link is returned, and the agent should confirm details before calling. Nothing 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?
The description is tight and front-loaded: purpose, process, trigger, inputs, return value, and a final confirmation instruction all appear in a logical order. Each sentence contributes to selecting or invoking the tool correctly, with minimal 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?
Given that an output schema exists and the input schema fully documents the parameters, the description covers all essential operational context: when to call, what to collect, what the user receives, and the reminder to confirm details. No critical piece of invocation knowledge is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, with every parameter already explained meaningfully in the input schema. The description merely summarizes 'company name, contact name, email, and what they rent' and does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with 'Request TrueRent's free rental review,' a specific verb plus resource, and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling tools by framing it as the free review flow rather than equipment coordination or pricing help. The full process—invoices, analysis, report delivery—makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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 'Use this when the user wants to start the free review or asks to be connected with TrueRent,' giving clear trigger conditions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is concrete enough that an agent can select it confidently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
equipment_coordinatorrental_pricing_helprequest_free_reviewClaiming 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, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
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!
Check contractor quotes for red flags and pricing risks. Free scan, paid reports, RFP tools.
Independent pre-transaction audit for construction estimates. Free, and every verdict recomputes.
Free buyer-side outcome verification and provider comparison for supplied agent receipts.
Auditable construction takeoffs with locked waste and conservative purchase rounding.
