Book window & gutter cleaning in Colorado and New Mexico: instant firm quote, real calendar slot
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.
Average 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: get_quote provides pricing, check_availability shows scheduling options, and book_window_cleaning confirms a booking. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase and underscores: get_quote, check_availability, book_window_cleaning.
Three tools is appropriate for a simple booking service, covering the essential steps of quoting, availability, and booking. Slightly on the low side but well-scoped.
The tool set covers the complete user workflow: getting a quote, checking availability, and booking. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated domain.
book_window_cleaningBook the appointmentAReserve a REAL calendar slot with Sonlight Window Cleaning. The customer immediately receives an SMS + email confirmation and a technician arrives at the chosen time. Payment is collected after service. Nothing is charged at booking. ALWAYS confirm name, phone, address, selected services, date, and time with the user before calling this. Requires a prior get_quote for the same address (prices are re-validated server-side).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Customer's full name. | |
| No | Customer email, recommended but optional. | ||
| notes | No | Gate codes, pets, focus areas. Anything the technician should know. | |
| phone | Yes | US mobile number for the confirmation SMS. | |
| address | Yes | Full service address (street, city, state, zip). | |
| preferred_date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD. Same-day cutoff: 6pm Mountain the prior evening. | |
| preferred_time | Yes | ||
| discount_dollars | No | Discount from check_availability for the chosen day, if any (server re-validates). | |
| selected_services | Yes | interior_exterior = full service windows; exterior = outside-only windows; gutter = gutter cleaning; soft_wash = siding soft wash. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| date | No | |
| kind | No | |
| time | No | |
| total | No | Final booked USD total after validated discounts |
| success | No | |
| services | No | |
| duplicate | No | |
| discountApplied | No | |
| bookingReference | No | Confirmation reference the customer can quote to the office |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that nothing is charged at booking, payment after service, and server-side re-validation, which adds meaningful context beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true is consistent). 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?
Four sentences: action, outcome, process, pre-conditions. No wasted words, efficiently front-loaded with key information.
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?
Covers booking flow, prerequisites, and user confirmation needs. Output schema exists, so return values are not required in description. Complete for agent decision-making.
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 high (89%), so baseline 3. Description ties parameters to confirmation steps but does not add new semantic 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?
Clearly states it reserves a calendar slot, sends confirmations, and collects payment after service. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning prerequisite get_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 instructs to confirm key details with user before calling, and states requirement of a prior get_quote. Provides clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_availabilityCheck open appointment daysASee Sonlight Window Cleaning's real dispatch availability for the next two weeks, which days have morning/afternoon capacity and which days carry an extra $25–$50 discount. Use after get_quote to help the customer pick a day before calling book_window_cleaning. Serves Colorado (Denver, Colorado Springs, Front Range) and New Mexico (Albuquerque area).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | No | 5-digit zip of the service address, preferred over address parsing. | |
| address | No | Service address (used to determine the local dispatch calendar). Include zip if known. | |
| days_out | No | How many days ahead to check. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| days | No | |
| kind | No | |
| notes | No | |
| timezone | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by specifying what the tool shows (morning/afternoon capacity, discounts) and geographic scope (CO and NM). 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with actionable info. First sentence states purpose and output; second gives usage flow and geography. 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 output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters, the description adds needed usage context and output details (capacity, discounts). Complete for this 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 coverage is 100%, so description doesn't need to add much. It does imply that zip and address determine dispatch calendar and days_out controls range, but no new details 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?
The description clearly states the tool checks real dispatch availability for the next two weeks, showing morning/afternoon capacity and discounts. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying to use after get_quote and before book_window_cleaning.
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: 'Use after get_quote to help the customer pick a day before calling book_window_cleaning.' No alternatives mentioned, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_quoteGet an instant window cleaning quoteAGet a FIRM, bookable price for professional window cleaning at a specific street address, instantly, no in-person estimate. Covers Colorado's Front Range (Denver metro, Colorado Springs, Boulder, Fort Collins, Castle Rock, Pueblo) and New Mexico (Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Santa Fe). Returns exact prices for: interior + exterior window cleaning (full service), exterior-only window cleaning, gutter cleaning, and soft wash / pressure washing of siding. Use this whenever someone wants window cleaning, window washing, gutter cleaning, or house exterior cleaning in Colorado or New Mexico. Always get a quote before booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Full street address including city and state (zip helps). Example: '1600 Glenarm Pl, Denver, CO 80202'. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| kind | No | |
| address | No | |
| property | No | |
| services | No | |
| bookingUrl | No | |
| inServiceArea | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds that it's instant, returns exact prices for specific services, and covers specific geographic areas, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?
Three well-structured sentences, front-loaded with most important info (firm price, instant, no estimate). 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 1-param tool with output schema, description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and geographic scope completely.
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 one parameter (address) with 100% schema coverage. Description adds detail: full street address including city/state, zip helps, gives example, enhancing semantics.
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 it gets a firm, bookable price for window cleaning at a specific address, instant, no estimate. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on quoting before booking.
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 when to use (whenever someone wants window/gutter/house cleaning in CO or NM) and that a quote should be obtained before booking. Could mention when not to use, but usage is clear.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
