Egyedi méretű műanyag ablak árbecslés (kalkulált ár), raktárkészlet és ajánlatkérés.
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 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
Each tool targets a distinct action: requesting a two-step quote, confirming it, getting a price estimate, and listing inventory. No overlap or confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: request_quote, confirm_quote, get_price_estimate, list_inventory.
Four tools is well-scoped for a window and door ordering server, covering the essential customer-facing actions without excess.
Covers core workflows (price inquiry, stock check, quote request with confirmation). Missing a tool to view or manage existing quotes, but the surface is functional for initial use.
confirm_quoteAInspectA request_quote MÁSODIK lépése: az ügyfél email-címére küldött 6 jegyű megerősítő kód beváltása. A kódot a FELHASZNÁLÓTÓL kérd el (a saját postafiókjában találja) — SOHA ne találd ki és ne próbálgasd (5 hibás próba után a kérés zárolódik). Sikeres megerősítés után jut el az ajánlatkérés a munkatársakhoz. Step 2 of request_quote: redeem the 6-digit email code obtained from the user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | A felhasználó email-jére érkezett 6 jegyű kód (a felhasználótól kérd el). | |
| leadId | Yes | A request_quote válaszában kapott leadId. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the lockout policy and states that successful confirmation forwards the request. However, it does not describe potential error cases or the response format, which would enhance 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 relatively concise, with the key information front-loaded. The bilingual content adds some length, but each sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly more streamlined by removing the Hungarian, but it's still efficient.
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 should ideally explain return values or success/failure indicators. It covers lockout behavior but lacks information on what the agent should expect after successful confirmation or in case of errors. Somewhat incomplete for a crucial step.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that leadId comes from request_quote response and code from user email, but this is already in the schema descriptions. No additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it is the second step of request_quote, redeeming a 6-digit code to confirm. The verb 'confirm' and resource 'quote' are clear, and it distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., request_quote is the first step, get_price_estimate and list_inventory are unrelated).
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 clear when-to-use: after request_quote. It instructs to ask the user for the code, warns against guessing or trying codes, and mentions the lockout after 5 wrong attempts. This provides explicit usage context and constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_price_estimateAInspectTájékoztató bruttó (ÁFA-s) ár EGYEDI MÉRETŰ (méretre gyártott) műanyag ABLAKRA vagy AJTÓRA. Custom-size gross price — élőben számolt, nincs fix SKU; a szerkesztő (Genesis) kalkulátorával egyező ár. Ajtó = egyedi Aluplast ajtó alapkivitel (a raktári CanDo ajtók külön, fix áron — ld. list_inventory). A végleges ár helyszíni felmérés után pontos. Forrás: ablakarajanlat.hu.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | window=ablak, door=egyedi ajtó | window |
| color | No | Szín, pl. Fehér, Antracit, Aranytölgy | |
| glazing | No | 2 vagy 3 rétegű üveg | |
| quantity | No | Darabszám | |
| width_cm | Yes | Szélesség cm-ben | |
| height_cm | Yes | Magasság cm-ben |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the price is a live estimate matching the calculator, includes VAT, and is subject to change after survey. No destructive or mutable behavior is implied, sufficient for an estimation 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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes bilingual text (Hungarian and English) which, while helpful, adds some redundancy. Overall it is efficient and logically structured.
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 price estimation tool with a complete input schema, the description covers the purpose, usage scope, and constraints. No output schema exists, but the description clarifies the output is a gross price. Minor omission: does not specify the output format (e.g., currency unit), but the core information is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining the context: 'type' maps to window/door, 'color' includes examples, 'glazing' indicates double/triple, and dimensions are for custom sizes. It also links 'door' to custom Aluplast doors, reinforcing the sibling distinction.
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 provides a gross (VAT-inclusive) price for custom-size plastic windows or doors, using a live calculation matching the Genesis editor. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting that standard inventory doors are handled by list_inventory.
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 explains when to use the tool (custom-size windows/doors) and when not (standard CanDo doors, which are priced separately via list_inventory). It also notes that the final price is determined after on-site survey, setting expectations correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_inventoryAInspectListázza az aktuálisan RAKTÁRON lévő szabvány nyílászárókat és kiegészítőket valós idejű bruttó árral és készlettel. Lists current ready-stock items with retail prices and inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully convey behavior. Mentions 'real-time' but no detail on data freshness, auth requirements, or side effects. Minimal disclosure.
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 brief sentences per language, front-loaded with key info. No superfluous text, though bilingual duplication slightly reduces 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?
Adequate for a parameterless tool, but lacks output schema or description of return format/pagination. Minimal for full contextual completeness.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4. Description doesn't need to add parameter info, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially).
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 the tool lists currently in-stock standard doors/windows and accessories with real-time gross price and inventory. Differentiates from sibling tools (quote-related) by focusing on inventory retrieval.
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?
Implies usage when real-time stock info is needed ('current ready-stock items'), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_quoteAInspectÉLES ajánlatkérés-beküldés KÉTLÉPCSŐS EMAIL-MEGERŐSÍTÉSSEL: egy VALÓDI ügyfél nevében küld felmérés-igényt. A beküldés után a rendszer 6 jegyű kódot küld az ügyfél EMAIL-címére; kérd el a kódot a felhasználótól, és hívd meg a confirm_quote eszközt — az igény CSAK ezután jut el a munkatársakhoz, akik a megadott telefonszámon visszahívják. EZ NEM TESZT/DEMO eszköz — SOHA ne adj meg példa-/helykitöltő adatot (pl. 'Teszt Elek', '555 1234', '123 4567', example.com); kitalált adatot a rendszer elutasít, megerősítő kód nélkül pedig a kérés elveszik. CSAK akkor hívd, ha a felhasználó KIFEJEZETTEN kérte, és a SAJÁT valódi nevét, telefonszámát ÉS email-címét adta meg. Two-step verified callback request — a 6-digit code is emailed to the customer; call confirm_quote with it, otherwise the request is discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Település (opcionális) | |
| name | Yes | Az ügyfél VALÓDI, általa megadott neve (nem példa/helykitöltő). Kötelező. | |
| Yes | Az ügyfél VALÓDI e-mail címe — erre érkezik a 6 jegyű megerősítő kód. Kötelező. | ||
| phone | Yes | Az ügyfél VALÓDI telefonszáma visszahíváshoz (nem kitalált/sorozat/555-ös szám). Kötelező. | |
| message | No | Méretek, igények, megjegyzés (opcionális) | |
| quantity | No | Darabszám/mennyiség (opcionális) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it sends a 6-digit code to the customer's email, requires a subsequent call to confirm_quote, and discards the request if not confirmed. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does so comprehensively.
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 somewhat lengthy due to bilingual content, but it is well-structured, front-loads key points (two-step, real data), and uses clear warnings. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more 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 the complexity of the two-step verification process and the strict data-validation requirements, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the entire workflow, prerequisites, and consequences, leaving no critical 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?
While the input schema already has descriptive parameter comments (100% coverage), the description adds process-level context: it explains why each required parameter is real data and their roles (email for code, phone for callback). This adds value 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: submitting a real quote request via a two-step email verification process. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the follow-up tool confirm_quote and contrasting with other tools like get_price_estimate and list_inventory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: only when the user explicitly requests an actual quote and provides real personal details. It warns against using placeholder data and tells the agent to call confirm_quote after obtaining the verification code.
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!
