pickanagency
Server Details
Search 47,000+ marketing agencies and get AI-matched with fitted agencies, from Pick an Agency.
- 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 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: get_agency retrieves a full profile by slug, match_agencies provides recommendations based on a brief, and search_agencies lets users browse/filter the directory. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (get_agency, match_agencies, search_agencies). The verbs clearly indicate the action, and the nouns are uniform.
Three tools is an appropriate number for this domain, covering the core user journeys: browsing (search), getting recommendations (match), and viewing details (get). It is neither too sparse nor excessive.
The tool set covers the primary use cases for an agency directory: search, match, and detail retrieval. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for listing services or comparing agencies, but the search and match tools handle most needs.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_agencyGet an agency profileARead-onlyInspect
Fetch a single agency's full profile from Pick an Agency by its slug (the last path segment of its profile URL), including description, location, rating, services, website and a few recent client reviews. WHEN TO USE: after search_agencies or match_agencies returned a result the user wants to know more about, or when the user names a specific agency whose slug you already know. Don't guess slugs - find them via search_agencies first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Agency slug, e.g. 'clients-now-seo-agency-chennai'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing what the response contains (fields like description, rating, recent reviews), without contradicting 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 plus a 'WHEN TO USE' section. Front-loaded purpose and actionable advice. 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?
Adequately covers what the tool returns and when to use it. For a simple 1-param read tool, this is nearly complete; could mention error handling for invalid slugs but not essential.
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 covers 100% of params with description. Description adds meaning: explains 'slug' as 'the last path segment of its profile URL' and provides an example, plus guidance to find via search.
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?
Specifies 'Fetch a single agency's full profile' with listed fields (description, location, rating, etc.) and distinguishes from siblings by stating it's used after search or match agencies.
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 when to use: after search_agencies or match_agencies, or when user names a specific agency with known slug. Includes prohibition against guessing slugs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
match_agenciesGet matched with fitted agenciesARead-onlyInspect
Pick an Agency's matching engine. Given a buyer brief (services needed, location, budget, industry), returns a short ranked shortlist of agencies that best fit - the same logic behind the free 'Get Matched' tool. WHEN TO USE: when the user describes their needs/project and wants a RECOMMENDATION ('I need a social media agency in Paris, ~$5k/month'). Requires at least one service. Use search_agencies instead for open browsing/filtering without a brief; use get_agency to drill into one result afterwards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Target city. | |
| limit | No | Shortlist size (default 5). | |
| budget | No | Monthly budget, e.g. '$5k-10k' or '5000'. | |
| country | No | Target country. | |
| industry | No | Buyer's industry, e.g. 'E-commerce'. | |
| services | Yes | Services the buyer needs, e.g. ['SEO', 'Content Marketing']. | |
| platforms | No | Ad platforms, e.g. ['Meta Ads', 'Google Ads']. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it uses the same logic as the free 'Get Matched' tool and requires at least one service. No contradictions, but could mention behavior when no matches found or pagination.
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?
Description is concise: three sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, and prerequisites. Front-loaded with the key action and resource, 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?
Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior, prerequisites, and alternative tools. It could mention return format or error handling for incomplete inputs, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the purpose tying parameters together but adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not provide formatting or usage details for individual 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?
The description clearly states the tool picks an agency's matching engine, takes a buyer brief, and returns a ranked shortlist. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use search_agencies and get_agency instead.
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 states WHEN TO USE: when user describes needs and wants a recommendation, requires at least one service. Also tells when not to use: use search_agencies for browsing without a brief, use get_agency to drill into one result. This effectively guides the agent's decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_agenciesSearch marketing agenciesARead-onlyInspect
Search Pick an Agency's directory of 47,000+ marketing agencies. Filter by free-text query, service (e.g. SEO, paid ads, social media), country, city, industry, and minimum rating. Returns the top matches with location, rating, reviews and profile link. WHEN TO USE: for browsing or filtering ('show me SEO agencies in Berlin', 'agencies named X') when the user wants a LIST to explore. Use match_agencies instead when the user describes their project/brief and wants a RECOMMENDATION; use get_agency for full detail on one specific agency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City, e.g. 'Berlin', 'New York'. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10). | |
| query | No | Free-text search (agency name, keyword). | |
| country | No | Country, e.g. 'United States', 'France'. | |
| service | No | Service, e.g. 'SEO', 'Social Media Marketing', 'Paid Advertising'. | |
| industry | No | Industry focus, e.g. 'SaaS', 'Healthcare'. | |
| min_rating | No | Minimum overall rating (0-5). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns top matches with location, rating, reviews, and profile link, fully disclosing behavior 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?
Concise and well-structured: action statement, filter list, return fields, and usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and efficiently written.
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?
Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers when to use, what data is returned, and explains all filters. No gaps remain.
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 lists the filters in a sentence, but adds no extra details beyond what the schema provides. 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 searches a directory of 47,000+ agencies, lists filters, and specifies returns. It distinguishes from siblings match_agencies and get_agency, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Includes explicit WHEN TO USE section: for browsing/filtering when a list is desired. Provides alternatives: match_agencies for recommendations, get_agency for single agency detail.
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!