Moving Helper
Server Details
Help estimating move size, inventory and quotes for house or office movers.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 2.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves status of an existing lead, the other submits data to request a new quote. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case ('get-lead-status' and 'request-moving-quote'), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only two tools, the server feels slightly under-scoped for a 'Moving Helper' domain, but the tools are both useful and cover at least two core actions. A few more tools would be expected for a typical moving service.
Obvious gaps exist: there is no tool to update or cancel a quote, manage leads beyond status checking, or handle scheduling. The surface is too sparse for even basic lifecycle coverage.
Available Tools
2 toolsget-lead-statusRead the results information for a leadCRead-onlyInspect
Read the results information for a lead
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| leadId | Yes | The ID of the lead |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | No | First and last name |
| No | Email address | |
| phone | No | Phone number |
| leadId | No | The ID of the lead |
| moveDate | No | Date of the move |
| moveSize | No | Size of the move |
| pictureCount | No | The number of pictures in the survey |
| originAddress | No | Origin address as address string |
| volumeInCubicFeet | No | The volume in cubic feet |
| destinationAddress | No | Destination address as address string |
| originGooglePlaceId | No | Origin address as google place id |
| analyzedPictureCount | No | The number of analyzed pictures |
| weightInImperialLibs | No | The weight in imperial pounds |
| costEstimateLowerBound | No | The lower bound of the cost estimate |
| costEstimateUpperBound | No | The upper bound of the cost estimate |
| destinationGooglePlaceId | No | Destination address as google place id |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation but adds no additional behavioral context, such as response format or side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description fails to provide extra value.
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 wasteful text, achieving conciseness. However, it is essentially a repeat of the title, which slightly reduces effective information density.
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 presence of an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate but does not elaborate on what 'results information' entails, leaving room for 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter leadId.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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, nor any prerequisites or context for reading lead status. The sibling tool is different, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request-moving-quoteSubmit important data about you and your move and get an accurate quote based on pictures for house or office movers in United States. CInspect
Submit important data about you and your move and get an accurate quote based on pictures for house or office movers in United States.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | First and last name | |
| Yes | Email address | ||
| phone | Yes | Phone number |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not reveal behavioral traits beyond annotations. Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, but no details on side effects (e.g., creating a lead), authentication needs, or response format are provided.
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 19 words, concise but lacks structure. It includes redundant phrasing ('important data') and introduces 'pictures' without schema support. Could be improved with clearer separation of concepts.
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 simple schema (3 basic parameters) and no output schema, the description should clarify what happens after submission (e.g., when the quote is received). It fails to provide complete context about the tool's behavior.
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 name, email, phone. The description adds no extra meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 (e.g., get-lead-status). It does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without context on proper invocation.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!