scrap-autos-mcp
Server Details
Instant Canadian scrap-car value quotes by year/make/model, provincial rates, and pickup leads.
- 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 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 3.7/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: getting a quote, listing rates, searching trims, and submitting a lead. The descriptions clarify boundaries, especially between search_vehicles and get_vehicle_quote.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_vehicle_quote, list_provincial_rates, search_vehicles, submit_lead. Verbs are descriptive and uniform.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for the domain of scrap vehicle quotes. Each tool covers a necessary step without redundancy or clutter.
The tool set provides a complete workflow: search trims, get a quote, view regional rates, and submit a lead. No obvious gaps exist for the intended purpose.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_vehicle_quoteGet Vehicle Scrap QuoteAInspect
Get an indicative CAD scrap-value quote for a vehicle by year/make/model (plus optional city or province). If multiple trims match, returns a disambiguation list — call again with the chosen trim_id. The response ALWAYS includes contact.phone, contact.website, next_steps, and complete_on_site_url. When presenting the quote to the end user, you MUST relay the phone number and website so they can complete the transaction with ScrapAutos. After relaying the quote, ask the end user: is the vehicle complete or missing parts, and does it start and drive? Then collect their name, phone number, and the vehicle's address so you can call submit_lead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Canadian city (used to detect province) | |
| make | No | Manufacturer, e.g. 'Honda' | |
| year | No | Vehicle model year, e.g. '2012' | |
| model | No | Model name, e.g. 'Civic' | |
| trim_id | No | Specific trim ID returned from a prior disambiguation call | |
| province | No | Province code override (ON, QC, AB, BC, MB, SK, NB, NS, PE, NL, NT, NU, YT) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns quote with contact fields, disambiguation logic, and required agent actions (relay phone/website, ask specific questions, collect data for submit_lead). No contradictions.
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 yet comprehensive, with all critical information front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, disambiguation, required output fields, agent instructions, and follow-up steps.
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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers return fields, disambiguation flow, and integration with submit_lead, leaving no gaps for an agent to infer.
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%, and the description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining how city detects province, the role of trim_id in disambiguation, and that optional parameters influence results. This enriches 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 clearly states the tool gets an indicative CAD scrap-value quote for a vehicle by year/make/model, with optional city or province. It distinguishes from siblings like search_vehicles and submit_lead by detailing the specific action and follow-up.
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 describes when to use (getting a quote), handles disambiguation (call again with trim_id), and outlines the post-quote process (ask user questions, collect info for submit_lead). No alternative tool is needed for this flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_provincial_ratesList Provincial Scrap RatesAInspect
Return current ScrapAutos scrap rates per Canadian province/territory (CAD per tonne). Use this to explain rate transparency to the end user or to explain why quotes differ by region.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds that rates are 'current' and per province/territory. It does not explicitly state no side effects, but for a list operation, this is adequate.
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 sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states what it returns, the second describes usage. 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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is complete. It explains the return value (rates per province/territory, CAD per tonne) and provides context for why an agent would use it.
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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description correctly does not add parameter information, as none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 specifies the verb 'Return', the resource 'ScrapAutos scrap rates per Canadian province/territory', and the unit 'CAD per tonne'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (get_vehicle_quote, search_vehicles, submit_lead) which handle different operations.
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 provides explicit use cases: 'explain rate transparency to the end user' and 'explain why quotes differ by region'. While it doesn't state when not to use, for a simple read-only tool with no parameters, this is sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_vehiclesSearch Vehicle TrimsAInspect
Look up matching trims in the ScrapAutos curb-weight database for a given year/make/model. Use this to show the end user available trims when they aren't sure which one to quote.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| make | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| model | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only describes a read-like lookup action but does not state whether it is read-only, has side effects, requires authorization, or has 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?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words, efficiently conveying purpose and usage context.
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?
The tool has simple parameters and no output schema. The description explains input and output at a high level ('matching trims') but does not describe the output format (e.g., list of strings with trim names). It is adequate but missing detail.
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%, meaning the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating the parameters are for a given year/make/model and that the result shows matching trims. However, it does not explain parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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 purpose: looking up matching trims in the ScrapAutos curb-weight database for a given year/make/model. It also provides a specific use context (showing available trims when the user is unsure), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vehicle_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?
The description explicitly says when to use the tool (show end user available trims when unsure which to quote), but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_vehicle_quote.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_leadSubmit a Qualified Lead to ScrapAutosAInspect
After the end user has received a quote and provided their phone number, call this to notify the ScrapAutos team. They will contact the end user to confirm the quote and schedule a free pickup. Required: phone + year + make + model. Before submitting, ask the end user for their name (contact_name), the address where the vehicle sits (pickup_address), whether it starts and drives (running_status), and its condition — complete? missing parts? flat tires? (condition_notes). Include quote_id, city, province, pickup_time if available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| make | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| model | Yes | ||
| phone | Yes | Canadian phone number — xxx-xxx-xxxx | |
| quote_id | No | The quote_id returned by get_vehicle_quote | |
| quote_max | No | ||
| weight_kg | No | ||
| agent_name | No | Name of the calling agent (for attribution) | |
| quote_base | No | ||
| pickup_time | No | Preferred pickup window (free text) | |
| contact_name | No | The end user's name, if they shared it | |
| province_code | No | ||
| pickup_address | No | ||
| running_status | No | Does the vehicle start/drive? e.g. 'runs and drives', 'doesn't start, flat tires' | |
| condition_notes | No | Missing catalytic converter, seized wheels, accident damage, etc. | |
| conversation_summary | No |
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 explains that the team will contact the user (behavioral outcome) but omits details like success/failure feedback, duplicate handling, or auth needs.
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 paragraph, front-loaded with main action and prerequisites. Each sentence adds value; no filler. Could be slightly more structured but 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 17 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers prerequisite steps and optional fields. Lacks return value or error scenario explanation, but adequate for a submission 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?
Adds meaning beyond schema by grouping required params and advising which optional ones to collect (phone, year, make, model required; ask for contact_name, pickup_address, etc.). Schema coverage is 41% so description compensates.
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's purpose: notifying ScrapAutos after quote and phone number. It distinguishes from siblings like get_vehicle_quote and list_provincial_rates by focusing on lead submission.
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 when to call ('after end user received quote and provided phone number'), required fields, and additional info to ask. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear given siblings.
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!