JustFix Estimator
Server Details
Quote UK trades jobs from any AI agent. Price breakdown + tappable booking link.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- Just-Fix/justfix-skill
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: fee inquiry, service listing, and estimate summary. No overlap between them.
Two tools use snake_case (call_out_fee, list_services) while one uses kebab-case (service-estimate-card), creating inconsistency in naming conventions.
Three tools is slightly low but reasonable for a focused estimator service. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being redundant.
The set covers fee inquiry and service listing, but lacks a tool for creating or retrieving detailed estimates or bookings, leaving notable gaps.
Available Tools
3 toolscall_out_feeCall Out FeeARead-onlyInspect
Get the call-out fee that applies to bookings. Use when the customer asks about the call-out fee, booking fee, or upfront cost for a booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it retrieves a fee, which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, such as whether the fee is static or dynamic, but given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.
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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Could be slightly more concise by removing synonyms, but overall very 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. The simplicity of the tool means no further detail is necessary, though a hint about the return format would be nice.
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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). The description adds context beyond the schema by specifying the use case, which aligns with the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.
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 it provides the call-out fee for bookings, using the specific verb 'get' and resource 'call-out fee'. It is distinct from siblings list_services and service-estimate-card, which deal with services and estimates.
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 says when to use the tool: 'when the customer asks about the call-out fee, booking fee, or upfront cost for a booking'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_servicesList ServicesARead-onlyInspect
Get a list of all services we provide. Use when the customer asks what services are available, what you can book, or similar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior; description adds that it returns a list of all services, which is minimal beyond annotations.
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 wasted 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 parameterless tool with annotations, the description provides clear purpose and usage context; output format is evident.
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 description does not need to add parameter info; baseline score of 4 for zero parameters.
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 it returns a list of all services, and differentiates from siblings like call_out_fee and service-estimate-card.
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 says to use when customer asks about available services or bookings, but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
service-estimate-cardCInspect
Service estimate summary card with external action link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| estimate | No | The time, in hours, estimated to complete the job. | |
| work_items | No | Optional list of tasks/scope items for the job. | |
| service_code | Yes | The slug of the service to create a service estimate card for. Use a code from list_services (e.g. electrical, plumbing, heating_and_gas). | |
| booking_description | Yes | A description of the work to be completed. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) indicate mutability, but description fails to disclose side effects, such as whether a card is created or an external link is followed. No details on behavior beyond the vague 'external action link'.
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?
Only one sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It earns its place by being short, but more detail would improve clarity without sacrificing 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?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description should clarify the tool's purpose and return value. It fails to explain what 'external action link' means or what the tool 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond 'external action link'.
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 says 'Service estimate summary card with external action link' which is vague and lacks a verb (e.g., create, get). It doesn't clarify what the tool does, and it doesn't distinguish from siblings 'call_out_fee' or 'list_services'.
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 vs alternatives like 'call_out_fee' or 'list_services'. No context or prerequisites provided.
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!