HireLocksmiths — Locksmith Finder
Server Details
Find a vetted, licensed U.S. locksmith and request a quote or booking.
- 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 4.4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.9/5.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: searching, checking availability, getting profiles, requesting quotes, booking jobs, and getting ETA proxies. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., search_locksmiths, request_quote), making it easy to predict tool names.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a locksmith finder service, covering search, details, availability, quotes, and booking without unnecessary bloat.
The tools cover the primary user workflow (search, inquire, book). A minor gap is the lack of a cancel or update tool for requests, but these are external processes handled by locksmiths.
Available Tools
6 toolsbook_jobAInspect
Create a booking request with a specific locksmith (firmer than request_quote).
ONLY call when the user wants to book a job — it sends a real request. Provide a
phone (preferred) or email. `preferred_time` is the requested window, e.g.
"today 3-5pm". This is a booking REQUEST, not a guaranteed appointment; the
locksmith confirms the time, price, and ETA. Returns a reference id (HL-####).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| details | No | ||
| service | No | lockout | |
| urgency | No | ||
| locksmith_id | Yes | ||
| preferred_time | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes that it sends a real booking request, not a guaranteed appointment, and that the locksmith confirms time/price/ETA. Returns a reference ID. No annotations are provided so description covers essential behavioral traits.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and return info. No redundant or 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?
With 9 parameters and no schema descriptions or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover most parameters, and the hint about phone/email being preferred contradicts their optional status in 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?
Only three parameters (phone, email, preferred_time) are described with usage hints. The remaining six parameters (zip, name, details, service, urgency, locksmith_id) are not explained, despite schema coverage being 0%.
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?
Clearly states 'Create a booking request with a specific locksmith' and distinguishes from sibling 'request_quote' by saying 'firmer than request_quote'.
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?
Explicitly says 'ONLY call when the user wants to book a job' and provides guidance on providing phone/email and preferred_time format. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives beyond mentioning request_quote.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_availabilityAInspect
Check coverage for one provider (locksmith_id) or an area (location: ZIP or city).
Returns whether the area is served, how many vetted providers cover it, and how many
offer 24/7 emergency service. Live availability is confirmed at request_quote — this
does not return a real-time "available now" status, so don't imply one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | No | ||
| locksmith_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses that the tool does not return real-time availability, explains what it returns (served status, provider count, 24/7 count), and sets expectations appropriately.
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-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
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 describes return values. Slight gaps: no input format details (e.g., ZIP format) and no error handling info, but overall sufficient for a simple coverage check tool.
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 has two parameters with no descriptions; the description adds that location expects ZIP or city and locksmith_id is for a specific provider. It implies they are used in an either/or manner but does not explicitly state mutual exclusivity or format constraints.
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 checks coverage for one provider (via locksmith_id) or an area (via location as ZIP or city). It distinguishes from sibling request_quote by explicitly stating that real-time availability is confirmed there, not here.
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?
Explicitly states what the tool is for (check coverage) and what it is not for (real-time availability). Directs to request_quote for live status, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_etaAInspect
Get an ETA proxy for a location (ZIP or city).
eta_minutes is null — HireLocksmiths does not pre-list ETAs. The tool returns the
number of vetted providers nearby and whether 24/7 emergency coverage exists (usually
fastest). For a real ETA, call request_quote and the locksmith confirms it directly.
Never invent a number of minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses that eta_minutes is null, what the tool returns (providers and emergency coverage), and that it is not a real ETA. This is transparent about limitations.
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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then explain output and usage guidance. 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and that eta_minutes is null. Covers key behavioral aspects for a single-parameter tool.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds that location can be a ZIP or city, providing useful context beyond the schema's type field.
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 gets an ETA proxy for a location (ZIP or city), and explains it returns number of vetted providers and emergency coverage, not a real ETA. This differentiates it from sibling tools like request_quote.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use request_quote for a real ETA and warns not to invent a number of minutes. Provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_locksmithAInspect
Get the full profile for one locksmith by id (from search_locksmiths).
Returns name, city/state, services, service-area ZIPs, rating, review count,
verification note, phone, and profile URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locksmith_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only describes the return data, not side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. However, as a simple read operation, the risk is low.
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 with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose and source, second lists returned fields. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 retrieval tool with one parameter, the description covers the source of the id and the returned fields. Lacking an output schema, but the field list suffices.
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 0%, but the single parameter 'locksmith_id' is self-explanatory. The description adds context by linking to search_locksmiths, earning a baseline score.
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 explicitly states 'Get the full profile for one locksmith by id' and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_locksmiths by specifying the source and listing returned fields.
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 clarifies that the id comes from search_locksmiths, implying a prior search step. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_quoteAInspect
Create a lead: ask a specific locksmith for a quote.
ONLY call this when the user has chosen a provider and wants to be contacted —
it sends a real request to the locksmith. Provide a phone (preferred) or email
so the locksmith can reach the customer. Returns a reference id (HL-####); the
locksmith confirms availability, price, and ETA directly.
Args:
locksmith_id: id from search_locksmiths / get_locksmith.
name: Customer name.
phone: Customer phone (preferred). Phone OR email is required.
email: Customer email (alternative to phone).
zip: 5-digit ZIP of the job (improves routing/records).
service: Job type, e.g. "lockout", "automotive".
details: Free-text description of the job.
urgency: e.g. "emergency", "today".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| details | No | ||
| service | No | lockout | |
| urgency | No | ||
| locksmith_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it creates a lead, sends a real request to the locksmith, and returns a reference id. It also explains that the locksmith confirms details directly.
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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a usage paragraph, then a bulleted arg list. No extraneous text; every sentence adds value.
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 explains the return value. It covers all aspects of tool usage: when to call, required fields, parameter roles, and behavioral expectations.
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 0%, but the description provides a clear parameter list with brief explanations for all 8 parameters, including which are required and defaults. Adds meaning beyond the bare 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?
The description states 'Create a lead: ask a specific locksmith for a quote' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is for when the user has chosen a provider and wants to be contacted.
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?
Explicitly says 'ONLY call this when the user has chosen a provider and wants to be contacted' and notes that it sends a real request. Provides clear context and required contact info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_locksmithsAInspect
Find vetted, licensed locksmiths near a location.
Use this first when a user needs a locksmith. Returns a ranked list of
human-vetted providers (featured first) with id, name, city, services,
rating, verified/featured flags, phone, and a profile URL.
Args:
location: A 5-digit US ZIP code (preferred) or a US city name.
service: Optional job type, e.g. "lockout", "automotive", "residential",
"commercial", "rekey", "install", "safe".
urgency: Optional, e.g. "emergency", "today", "scheduled".
budget: Optional free-text budget hint.
limit: Max results to return (1-20, default 5).
Note: price and ETA are NOT pre-listed — they are confirmed by the locksmith
after you call request_quote. Do not invent prices or ETAs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| budget | No | ||
| service | No | ||
| urgency | No | ||
| location | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries burden. Discloses that results are ranked with featured providers first, lists returned fields, and warns that price/ETA are not pre-listed and should not be invented. Does not mention auth or rate limits.
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?
Well-structured with purpose, return details, parameter list, and note. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could trim 'Args:' prefix.
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?
Describes return fields and warning about prices. Missing pagination/error details, but given no output schema and simple search, it is adequately complete for agent use.
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 0%, but description thoroughly explains each parameter: location format (ZIP or city), service examples, urgency examples, budget as free-text, limit range and default. Adds significant meaning beyond the 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?
The description clearly states it finds vetted, licensed locksmiths near a location. It distinguishes from sibling tools by saying 'Use this first when a user needs a locksmith' and noting that price/ETA are confirmed via request_quote.
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?
Explicitly says to use this first for locksmith needs. Implies when not to use (e.g., for pricing/ETA, use request_quote). Could mention alternatives like get_locksmith for a specific provider.
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!