Trades SEO Agency: the site's own MCP server — compare, enquiry (enquiry = a human handoff, not...
The criteria and any filters of the Ways a contractor can buy search marketing comparison.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether any side effects exist, or how the output is structured. The description names content but fails to disclose the operation's behavior.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but its structure is awkward and confusing: 'The criteria and any filters of the Ways a contractor can buy search marketing comparison' reads more like a fragment than a clear tool definition. It would benefit from being reworded as an actionable sentence.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description needed to provide adequate context for an agent deciding among several similar sibling tools. It falls short: it gives no indication of return shape, no behavioral detail, and no guidance on when this tool is preferred over compare_options or compare_table. The low parameter count reduces complexity, but the contextual gap remains significant.
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 zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not mislead about parameters. No additional parameter information is necessary here.
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 identifies a concrete object (the criteria and any filters) and ties it to a domain context (the 'Ways a contractor can buy search marketing' comparison), but it is a noun phrase with no verb such as 'returns', 'lists', or 'compares.' It is clearer than a tautology but still leaves the tool's actual operation ambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use compare_criteria versus the sibling tools compare_options, compare_table, or the enquiry_* tools. The only hint is the word 'criteria/filters,' which weakly implies use for criteria introspection, but no alternatives, exclusions, or context conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The options in the Ways a contractor can buy search marketing comparison (name, what it is best for, tags), optionally filtered by a tag value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filterKey | No | ||
| filterValue | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose an optional filtering behavior and mentions the fields returned, which is useful. However, it does not clearly state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no filter is supplied, or how the filter behaves, so the behavioral picture remains incomplete.
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 short and contains no obvious filler, but it is structurally awkward: it starts with a noun phrase instead of an action, packs the domain context into a long parenthetical, and front-loads neither the operation nor the filtering behavior. It is compact without being cleanly organized.
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 there are no annotations and no output schema, the description needed to provide more complete invocation context. It fails to explain the parameters, offers no routing guidance relative to the sibling comparison tools, and gives only a partial picture of the return data. The tool may be simple, but the available context is not sufficient for reliable selection and 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%, so the description must compensate for the two completely undocumented parameters, filterKey and filterValue. The phrase 'optionally filtered by a tag value' is a vague hint, but it never maps the tag value to either parameter and leaves filterKey entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to call the tool correctly.
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 identifies the resource as 'options' in a specific comparison context and lists the returned fields, so an agent can roughly infer that this tool retrieves option data. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action like 'list' or 'return', and it largely restates the tool name and title without sharply distinguishing it from compare_criteria or compare_table.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as compare_criteria or compare_table. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or the context in which compare_options is the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each option's value on every criterion of the Ways a contractor can buy search marketing comparison — the full table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| option | No | one option's name, else all |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool exposes a read-only table of values and that the result is the full comparison rather than a subset. It does not explicitly describe side effects, output format, or the effect of the optional option parameter, but nothing in the description is misleading.
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 a single sentence with no filler words, and the core idea—full table of option values by criterion—is front-loaded. It is concise, though the phrasing 'Ways a contractor can buy search marketing comparison' is grammatically awkward and slightly detracts from 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?
The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description adequately communicates the table's content but does not mention the optional option parameter, output shape, or how this tool relates to compare_criteria and compare_options. It is minimally viable but leaves some selection context to inference.
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 covers the single parameter fully with 'one option's name, else all,' so the description does not need to explain it further. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema is sufficient, keeping this at the baseline 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?
The description identifies the resource (the comparison table) and specifies its contents: each option's value on every criterion. The phrase 'full table' signals that this is an unfiltered cross-tabulation, which helps distinguish it from compare_criteria and compare_options. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'returns' or 'displays,' and the wording is somewhat awkward.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus compare_criteria or compare_options. The 'full table' phrase weakly implies a complete view, but there is no explicit condition, exclusion, or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role among its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Trades SEO Agency: it starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly. Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. Also returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and delivers: it states that nothing is 'bought, ordered or paid,' no quote is guaranteed, the process is free, and it returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and the confirmation method. This conveys the non-committal, safe nature of the described flow. It stops short of explicitly declaring that calling enquiry_describe itself has no side effects, but the content is strongly informative.
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 and roughly 60 words, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The triadic phrasing 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' is slightly emphatic but earns its place by clarifying the non-commercial nature. No filler or irrelevant detail.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does convey the return content. But it leaves the agent to infer when to surface this content to the user and how it relates to the sibling enquiry_fields tool, which plausibly returns similar information. A short note on the tool's read-only nature would complete 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 zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description instead clarifies what the tool returns — recipients, consent wording, and confirmation flow — which is the only semantic content an agent could need. There are no parameters left unexplained.
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 the tool's purpose: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Trades SEO Agency,' naming a specific resource and the descriptive action. It clearly connotes a read-and-explain tool rather than a mutating one. However, most text describes submit_enquiry's behavior rather than enquiry_describe's own function, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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 opening directive 'Read first' implies the tool should be invoked before taking action (i.e., before submit_enquiry), which gives meaningful sequencing guidance. But it never states explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use conditions, and it does not address sibling alternatives such as enquiry_fields or the comparison tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Every field of the Trades SEO Agency enquiry: key, label, type, whether required, help text and the allowed options where there are any. Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does so by naming the complete set of returned attributes. It clearly implies a read-only schema discovery operation with no side effects. It does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or require no special authorization, but the content and wording strongly signal a non-mutating lookup.
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 filler. The first sentence front-loads exactly what the tool returns, and the second sentence adds the essential downstream usage tip. Every part 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 a zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what will be returned and how to use that information with submit_enquiry. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.
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 is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.
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 resource ('every field of the Trades SEO Agency enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is exposed: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It is distinguishable from siblings like submit_enquiry and compare_table by focusing purely on the enquiry's field definitions. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', so the action is only implied, not stated.
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 second sentence provides direct usage context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells an agent how the output connects to the sibling submission tool. This implies the tool should be used to discover the field structure before submitting. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings like enquiry_describe or compare_criteria, but the keyed-submission guidance is valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submits an enquiry to Trades SEO Agency — NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote. Step 1: call with the answers (keyed by field key from enquiry_fields) and consent=true; it validates and returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token — show the person the summary and the consent line. Step 2: only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token; the enquiry is then submitted, and the person receives an email with a link they must click before any provider sees it. Consent means the person has read and agreed to: "Happy for my details to go to marketing agencies, who'll contact me directly."
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answers | Yes | the person's answers, keyed by field key | |
| consent | Yes | true only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to marketing agencies, who'll contact me directly. | |
| confirmation | No | the confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly: step 1 only validates and returns a summary/token, step 2 actually submits and sends an email, and providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. It also spells out the exact consent text.
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 long but densely packed with necessary procedural steps and caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusions, then structured into Step 1 and Step 2. The length is justified by the two-step workflow, though it could be tightened slightly.
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?
It covers step-1 return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), step-2 outcome (submission, email, link click), and consent semantics. Missing details like step-2 return value or error cases are minor given the complexity already explained.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds vital meanings: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is only valid with the specified agreement text, and confirmation is the step-1 token used in step 2. This goes well beyond the schema's bare property names.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Trades SEO Agency', then immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This clearly differentiates the tool from any purchase-related sibling and states the two-step nature.
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?
It gives explicit step-by-step instructions: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, Step 2 with confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also states what consent must mean. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like compare_options, but the procedural context is clear enough.
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.
compare_criteriacompare_optionscompare_tableenquiry_describeenquiry_fieldssubmit_enquiryClaiming 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!
Trades Software Picker: the site's own MCP server — compare, enquiry (enquiry = a human handoff,...
Compare Trade Software: the site's own MCP server — compare, enquiry (enquiry = a human handoff,...
Snagging Software: the site's own MCP server — compare, enquiry (enquiry = a human handoff, not...
Motor Trade Insurance Compare: the site's own MCP server — compare, enquiry (enquiry = a human...
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The six tools split cleanly into two clear groups: three comparison-read tools (criteria, options, table) and three enquiry-flow tools (describe, fields, submit). Each tool has a distinct responsibility, and the descriptions make it obvious which one to call for a given need.
The naming is mostly consistent and predictable, using clear prefixes like compare_ and enquiry_. The main deviation is that submit_enquiry is verb-first while compare_criteria, compare_options, and compare_table are noun-first, which is a minor but noticeable inconsistency.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a server that covers a comparison view plus an enquiry submission flow. Each tool earns its place, and there is no redundancy or bloat.
The comparison surface is complete: agents can see criteria, options, and the full value table. The enquiry surface is also complete with an orientation tool, a schema tool, and a two-step submission tool, so there are no obvious dead ends.
