AI-native timeshare marketplace with FL DBPR + CFPB government-source data. Source-linked.
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 3.2/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
Each tool targets a distinct data source or action: search tools query different databases (listings, complaints, FL DBPR projects), get tools retrieve specific entities (listing, resort, payment history), list tools aggregate brands/resorts, and bridge tools handle curation. There is no overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case: add_to_bridge, create_bridge, get_listing, get_orientation, get_payment_history, get_resort, get_stats, list_brands, list_resorts, search_complaints, search_dbpr_projects, search_timeshares. The pattern is predictable and clear.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a timeshare research and bridge curation domain. It covers multiple data sources (listings, complaints, FL DBPR, stats) and actions (search, get, list, create, add) without being excessive or too sparse.
The tool set covers core workflows: orientation, searching, viewing details, complaints, registration, and bridge creation. Minor gaps exist: there is no tool to remove listings from bridges or to list existing bridges, and no update/delete for listings (though likely out of scope). Overall, the surface is largely complete for the intended use.
add_to_bridgeBInspectAdd a listing to a bridge page by listing ID. The property appears on the buyer page with full economics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | Bridge session hash | |
| notes | No | AI analysis note for the buyer | |
| score | No | AI fit score 1-10 | |
| listing_id | Yes | Listing ID from search results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only mentions that the property 'appears on the buyer page.' It does not disclose side effects, mutability, idempotency, or permissions needed, leaving significant behavioral aspects unclear.
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 concise sentences with no padding. Every word serves a purpose, efficiently communicating core functionality and outcome.
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 tool with no output schema and few parameters, the description covers the basic goal but omits details like whether adding multiple times is allowed, error conditions, or the nature of 'full economics.' It is adequate 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%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'listing ID' but this is already documented. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no extra meaning is conveyed.
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 action 'Add a listing to a bridge page' using a specific identifier (listing_id) and explains the outcome 'appears on the buyer page with full economics,' effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_bridge or get_listing.
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 this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies the need for a bridge session hash and listing ID but fails to provide context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_bridgeBInspectCreate a bridge page — a persistent URL where AI curates timeshare research for a buyer. Returns a shareable URL. The buyer sees property cards with viability grades, rental estimates, fee coverage, and AI notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| brand | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| bedrooms | No | ||
| budget_max | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a shareable URL and describes the buyer's view, but it fails to disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is destructive. For a 'create' action, this is insufficient.
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 front-loaded, stating the primary action in the first sentence. It adds relevant detail about the output and buyer experience without unnecessary fluff, though a slightly more structured format could improve scannability.
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 the tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It explains the output at a high level but omits parameter semantics, error conditions, idempotency, and usage constraints, leaving significant gaps.
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 explain parameters. It does not reference any of the six parameters (city, brand, notes, state, bedrooms, budget_max), leaving their purpose and constraints undocumented. This is a critical gap.
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 creates a bridge page, a persistent URL for AI-curated timeshare research. This verb+resource pair distinguishes it from siblings like add_to_bridge (which likely modifies an existing bridge) and other retrieval tools.
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 the tool should be used when a buyer needs AI-curated research, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_to_bridge, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_listingBInspectGet individual listing detail with CFPB complaints for that brand
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it's a read operation that includes complaints, but fails to mention side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Limited transparency.
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 wasted words. However, it lacks important parameter clarification, slightly reducing effectiveness.
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 the single parameter and no output schema, the description partially explains the tool's purpose (listing detail with complaints). However, it omits details like what 'listing detail' includes and the meaning of the 'id' parameter.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter 'id', the description does not explain what the 'id' represents (e.g., listing ID, brand ID). No additional meaning is added 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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'individual listing detail', and adds 'with CFPB complaints for that brand'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_orientation and get_resort.
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 retrieving listing details with complaints but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_timeshares or list_brands. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_orientationAInspectGet pre-computed context about the timeshare index — use this first
| 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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as being read-only, requiring authentication, or any side effects. Given the zero-parameter input, the description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior beyond its purpose.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage order. Every word earns its place, and there is no 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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It tells what the tool does and when to use it, but does not describe the return format or contents. For a simple introductory tool, this is adequate but could benefit from a brief note on what the context includes.
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, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no room for improvement.
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 action (get) and resource (pre-computed context about the timeshare index), and the phrase 'use this first' implies it provides orientation, distinguishing it from sibling tools. However, it does not specify what exactly the context contains, which could be more precise.
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 advises 'use this first', giving clear guidance on when to invoke this tool before others. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the instruction is direct and useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_payment_historyBInspectGet FL DBPR payment/billing history for a timeshare project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_number | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic operation. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what data format is returned. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description only covers the core function. It does not describe return values, error conditions, or prerequisites like project existence. An agent needs more context to use this confidently.
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 single parameter 'project_number' is not described in the schema. The tool description implies it identifies a timeshare project but provides no format, validation, or example. For a required parameter, this is insufficient guidance.
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 'Get', the resource 'payment/billing history', and the scope 'FL DBPR timeshare project'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_listing or get_resort which are different resources.
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 needing payment history for a specific project, but provides no explicit when/not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among siblings like search_dbpr_projects or search_complaints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_resortBInspectGet resort detail including listings, FL DBPR registration, and payment history
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Resort name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only lists return content, with no disclosure of side effects (read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or other 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?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose. Slightly better than average conciseness.
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?
Acceptable for a simple retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter, but lacks detail on response structure and potential constraints, especially given no output 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 one parameter with schema coverage 100%. Description adds no insight beyond the schema's parameter description ('Resort name'), so baseline 3 applies.
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 retrieves resort detail and lists included items (listings, FL DBPR registration, payment history), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_listing' and 'get_payment_history'.
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 guidelines on when to use or avoid this tool. Context from sibling names provides some inference, but the description does not offer direct usage recommendations or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_statsBInspectGet database statistics and distributions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It simply says 'Get', implying a read operation, but lacks details on safety (e.g., read-only), rate limits, or any side effects.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and delivers the core purpose efficiently.
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 and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned, the format, or how they can be used, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, zero parameters baselines at 4, and the description does not need to add parameter meaning.
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 retrieves 'database statistics and distributions', which is a distinct purpose from sibling tools that focus on specific entities like listings or resorts.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools cover specific domains, but the description does not clarify that this tool is for overall database metrics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_brandsAInspectList all timeshare brands with listing counts, price ranges, and resort counts
| 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 discloses the behavior: it returns listing counts, price ranges, and resort counts. This is sufficient for a read-only listing tool. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but these are likely not needed for a presumably small set of brands.
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 that conveys all necessary information without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It is slightly vague on the exact structure of listings (e.g., whether it's a sorted list), but for a simple listing it is reasonably complete.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema (which is empty). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not mislead.
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 uses the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'timeshare brands'. It further specifies the returned data includes listing counts, price ranges, and resort counts, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_resorts which list resorts.
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 a list of all brands with aggregated statistics is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The simplicity of the tool (no parameters) makes the context clear, yet formal usage direction is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_resortsBInspectList resorts with listing summaries, filterable by state or brand
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates 'listing summaries' but doesn't specify pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether results are limited. As a read-only tool, this is basic but 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. No wasted words. Could be more structured with bullet points, but it's sufficiently concise.
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, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description should provide more context. It lacks details on result format, pagination, default behavior (e.g., without filters), and how it differs from 'get_listing' or 'search_timeshares'. Incomplete for an effective interaction.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context by saying 'filterable by state or brand', which maps to two parameters. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide defaults/enums. Partial compensation.
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), resource (resorts with summaries), and filtering options (state or brand). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_resort' (single item) and 'search_timeshares' (different domain).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not scenarios mentioned. The description only mentions filtering but doesn't clarify when to use this over, e.g., 'get_resort' for detailed info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_complaintsCInspectSearch CFPB consumer complaints for timeshare companies
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | ||
| company | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. The agent must infer from the name.
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, no wasted words. However, it lacks depth needed for a tool with no annotations or parameter descriptions. Could be more informative without being verbose.
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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine what the search returns or how to interpret results. More details on output format or typical responses are needed.
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 0% description coverage. While parameter names 'state' and 'company' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not elaborate on expected format or meaning. For example, is 'state' a two-letter code? Does 'company' accept partial names? No guidance.
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 'Search', resource 'CFPB consumer complaints', and domain 'timeshare companies'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_dbpr_projects or search_timeshares, which could also target timeshare-related data.
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 on when to use this tool over alternatives. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases. The description is too terse to help an agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_dbpr_projectsCInspectSearch FL DBPR registered timeshare projects
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| county | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, return format, or pagination. Only the word 'Search' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.
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 extremely short (6 words), but this conciseness comes at the expense of necessary detail. While not verbose, it lacks substance for a tool with 2 parameters.
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 and no annotations, the description does not complete the picture. It fails to explain what DBPR is, the nature of timeshare projects, or what the search returns.
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 adds no information about the 'name' and 'county' parameters. It does not explain how they filter results or any formatting requirements.
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 'Search' and the specific resource 'FL DBPR registered timeshare projects', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_complaints and search_timeshares.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as search_timeshares or search_complaints. Prerequisites or limitations are not mentioned.
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!