Blooming Pets - Petsitter Search
Server Details
Search for pet-sitters across France. Find available pet-sitters near any French city with real-time pricing, reviews, distance and availability. Supports 6 service types (visits, dog walking, home-sitting day/night/full, professional boarding) and 43 animal types. Remote MCP server — Streamable HTTP transport, no API key required.
- 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 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one retrieves service types, the other searches for petsitters. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_service_types, search_petsitters), making them predictable.
With only two tools for a domain that typically requires more (e.g., getting individual petsitter details, booking), the count feels minimal but not entirely unreasonable for a focused search server.
The tool set lacks essential operations: no way to retrieve full profile details of a petsitter from the search result, no booking or review tools, creating gaps for agents.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_service_typesTypes de prestations disponiblesARead-onlyInspect
Retourne la liste des types de prestations de garde animale proposées sur Blooming Pets, avec leurs codes et descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the output contains codes and descriptions. No contradictions or missing critical behavior details for a read-only list operation.
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?
Single sentence with no redundancy, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word contributes to clarity.
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 no output schema, the description adequately specifies that the return value is a list of service types with codes and descriptions. It lacks details like whether the list is ordered or filterable, but this is sufficient for a simple read operation.
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?
With zero parameters and schema coverage at 100%, the description does not need to add parameter info. It appropriately describes the result without mentioning parameters, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 it returns a list of service types with codes and descriptions, using a specific verb ('retourne') and resource ('types de prestations'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_petsitters' by focusing on service types rather than petsitter search.
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 implies usage for retrieving service types but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide context like prerequisites or ideal scenarios. Given only one sibling, the intent is clear but lacking explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_petsittersRecherche de pet-sittersARead-onlyInspect
Recherche des pet-sitters disponibles à proximité d'une localisation en France. Retourne une liste avec nom, ville, distance, prix indicatif, note et lien vers le profil. Le service couvre : visites à domicile, promenade de chien, home-sitting (jour/nuit/complet), pension professionnelle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Numéro de page (défaut : 1, 8 résultats par page). | |
| animals | No | Liste des animaux à faire garder. Ex: [{"type":"chats","count":2}] | |
| date_end | No | Date de fin de la garde (format YYYY-MM-DD). Par défaut : même que date_start. | |
| latitude | No | Latitude GPS (optionnel si localisation est fournie). | |
| longitude | No | Longitude GPS (optionnel si localisation est fournie). | |
| radius_km | No | Rayon de recherche en km (défaut : 30, max 200). | |
| date_start | No | Date de début de la garde (format YYYY-MM-DD). Par défaut : aujourd'hui. | |
| localisation | Yes | Ville, code postal ou adresse en France (ex: 'Lille 59000', 'Paris 75011', '33000 Bordeaux'). Sera géocodée automatiquement. | |
| service_type | No | Type de prestation souhaitée. 'visite' = visites à domicile (par défaut), 'promenade' = promenade de chien, 'home_sitting_jour' = garde à domicile du propriétaire en journée, 'home_sitting_nuit' = garde à domicile la nuit, 'home_sitting_complet' = garde à domicile jour et nuit, 'pension' = pension professionnelle. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the tool is clearly a read-only search. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the fact that it returns specific fields and covers multiple service types. However, it does not mention any rate limits, data freshness, or failure modes, keeping the transparency adequate but not exceptional.
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 concise, consisting of a few sentences that front-load the main purpose and output. It is well-structured and every sentence adds value. A slight improvement would be to break it into bullet points for readability, but the current form is effective.
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 9 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the output fields (nom, ville, etc.) and the service types covered. It is nearly complete for a search tool with good annotations. Missing details like pagination behavior (already in schema) or error handling, but the addition of output field list compensates for lack of output schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the service coverage (visits, walks, etc.) which relates to the service_type parameter. However, it does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, justifying a baseline score of 3.
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 searches for available pet-sitters near a location in France and returns a specific list of fields (name, city, distance, indicative price, rating, link to profile). This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from its sibling 'get_service_types' which likely only lists service types.
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 makes it clear that this tool is for searching pet-sitters by location and service type. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the context of a single sibling tool (get_service_types) provides implicit differentiation. Adding explicit 'when to use vs. get_service_types' would improve this dimension.
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!