Find car wash centers in France, compare prices, check live availability, and look up a booking.
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 3.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing centers, retrieving booking, listing services, recommending wash, and searching slots. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., find_centers, get_booking, search_available_slots). No deviations.
5 tools is reasonable for a focused car-wash booking domain, though the set is slightly underpopulated for a full CRUD workflow.
Missing essential tools for creating, updating, or canceling bookings. The server allows discovering services and slots but not completing a reservation, which is a significant gap.
find_centersTrouver des centresBInspectList active car-wash centers within radiusKm of a latitude/longitude, nearest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | ||
| radiusKm | Yes | Search radius in kilometres (max 50) | |
| longitude | Yes | ||
| serviceType | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'active' and 'nearest first'. It does not disclose behavior such as rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens if no results. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the obvious.
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, extremely concise, front-loads the key action and criteria. No wasted words, 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?
Tool has 4 params, optional serviceType, and no output schema or annotations. The description lacks detail on return structure, error conditions, or behavior when serviceType is omitted. Incomplete for a contextual understanding.
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 low (25%, only radiusKm has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, missing explanation of required lat/lng format, optional serviceType meaning, or how radiusKm is used.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'active car-wash centers', with explicit criteria (within radiusKm of lat/lng, nearest first). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_booking or get_services by specifying a geographic 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 finding nearby car-wash centers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like recommend_wash or search_available_slots. No exclusions or context guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_bookingConsulter une réservationAInspectRetrieve a booking the caller owns. Requires a Firebase phone-OTP token (Authorization: Bearer ); the booking is only returned when its phone number matches the verified caller.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| bookingId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication (Firebase phone-OTP token) and authorization (only returns when phone matches). It does not describe error behavior or read-only nature, but the verb 'Retrieve' implies read-only.
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 purpose, no extraneous 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?
No output schema, no annotations, and parameter semantics are missing. The description is incomplete for a tool with two parameters; an agent would need more details on return values and parameter roles.
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% and the description provides no information about the parameters (email and bookingId). The AI agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.
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 'Retrieve a booking the caller owns,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (find_centers, get_services, etc.) by focusing on a single booking owned by the caller.
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 when the caller needs to retrieve their own booking, and it specifies authentication requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_servicesLister les prestations d’un centreAInspectList the services a center offers with a starting price each. centerId is the numeric id from find_centers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| centerId | Yes | Numeric center id as returned by find_centers |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must bear full burden. Describes core behavior (list services with prices) but omits details like error handling, pagination, or idempotency. Adequate for a simple read tool.
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, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second sentence explains parameter source. Efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Adequate for a single-parameter list tool. Mentions starting price and parameter source. Could mention return format or empty result behavior but not strictly necessary.
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% with parameter description. The description repeats schema info ('centerId is the numeric id from find_centers') without adding new semantic value. 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 verb 'List' and object 'services a center offers with a starting price each'. Differentiates from siblings like find_centers (find centers) and get_booking (get 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 links centerId to find_centers tool, providing clear prerequisite. Does not explicitly state when not to use, 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.
recommend_washRecommander une formuleAInspectRecommend a wash formula for a vehicle given how dirty it is and the season. Pure guidance, no booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| season | No | ||
| dirtLevel | Yes | ||
| vehicleType | Yes | e.g. citadine, berline, SUV, utilitaire |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is guidance-only and does not create bookings. However, it does not detail what the recommendation looks like (e.g., text output) or any prerequisites. Adequate for a simple recommendation tool.
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 the specific action and resource, then a concise constraint. No superfluous 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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the inputs (dirt level, season) and the nature of the output (guidance). Could optionally mention return format, but not necessary.
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 33% (only vehicleType described). Description mentions 'how dirty it is and the season' linking to dirtLevel and season parameters, but does not add new meaning beyond schema enums. VehicleType is only elaborated in schema. Marginal value added.
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?
Describes the tool as recommending a wash formula based on dirt level and season. The verb 'recommend' and resource 'wash formula' are clear. Distinguishes from siblings like 'find_centers' and 'get_booking' by emphasizing it is guidance only, not 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?
States 'Pure guidance, no booking', which clarifies the tool's advisory role versus booking-related siblings. However, does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives; the exclusion is implicit. Context from sibling tools helps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_available_slotsRechercher des créneaux disponiblesAInspectFind open car-wash time slots near a location on a given day. Returns centers with their available slots and busyness level.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Target day in YYYY-MM-DD (Europe/Paris) | |
| location | Yes | City, postal code, center name or slug, e.g. "Paris" or "75017" | |
| serviceType | No | Filter: fixed (on-site), mobile, or home service |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the output (centers with slots and busyness) but omits safety, side effects, or idempotency. Minimal but not 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?
Two short sentences (16 words) that front-load the purpose. No redundancy or unnecessary 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?
Given no output schema, the description mentions return content (centers, slots, busyness) but lacks detail on structure, pagination, or edge cases. Adequate for a simple search but incomplete.
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% with clear descriptions for all parameters (date, location, serviceType). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 finds open car-wash time slots near a location on a given day, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like find_centers (centers only) and get_booking (existing 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The description lacks conditions, exclusions, or references to siblings, leaving the agent to infer context.
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!
