Free digital marketing quote and strategy requests from Juicy Designs SA. No price returned.
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 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: booking sessions, getting portfolio/case studies, reviews, FAQs, quotes, service areas, and service catalog. No overlapping functionality.
Most tools use the consistent 'get_' prefix (5 out of 7), but 'book_strategy_session' uses 'book_' instead. This minor deviation doesn't cause confusion, as the verb accurately reflects the action.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an agency quote and info server, covering all key interactions without being excessive or sparse.
The tool set covers requesting a quote, booking a session, and providing information on services, areas, portfolio, reviews, and FAQs. Minor gaps like checking request status or direct pricing details exist, but the scope is appropriate for initial engagement.
book_strategy_sessionAInspectRequest a free, no-obligation strategy session with Juicy Designs. Confirm the user's details and consent before calling. Does not return a price or book a confirmed time; the team replies to arrange a session within four working hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Contact name. | |
| Yes | Contact email address. | ||
| phone | No | Contact phone number. | |
| topic | No | What the user wants to discuss (for example SEO, ads, a new website, AI search). | |
| company | No | Company or brand name. | |
| service | No | Optional main service of interest. | |
| consent_to_contact | Yes | Must be true: the user agrees to be contacted (POPIA). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool does not provide immediate booking or pricing, but instead submits a request that the team replies to within four working hours. This aligns with the annotations (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds useful context about side effects and response expectations.
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 concise: two sentences that cover purpose, constraints, and response time. Every word adds value, with no repetition or fluff.
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 request tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's scope, limitations, and expected interaction flow. It lacks detail on return values or error handling, but the core context is sufficient for an AI agent to use it 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?
All 7 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal additional semantics beyond emphasizing consent and confirming details. 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's purpose: requesting a free strategy session with Juicy Designs. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get' tools by noting it does not book a confirmed time or return a price, making its role as a lead-generation request 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?
The description instructs the agent to confirm the user's details and consent before calling, providing clear context for invocation. However, it does not explicitly list when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives, though the sibling tools are all read-only, making the distinction implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_case_studiesBJuicy Designs track record and portfolio pointer. Agency-wide figures, not a guarantee of individual results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: the results are agency-wide aggregates, not individual guarantees, which is beyond what annotations state.
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?
Very concise at two sentences, but the first sentence is cryptic ('portfolio pointer') and could be clearer. Second sentence adds important caveat. Minor room for improvement.
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?
Lacks description of return format or content beyond 'track record and portfolio pointer'. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate but does not. Sibling tools exist but no comparative context.
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 schema coverage is 100% by default. Baseline score of 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
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 'track record and portfolio pointer' implies the tool provides case studies, but lacks a clear verb indicating an action (e.g., 'retrieves'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_client_reviews by referring to portfolio, but the purpose is vague.
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. The phrase 'Agency-wide figures, not a guarantee of individual results' hints at scope but doesn't direct selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_client_reviewsAJuicy Designs aggregate Google rating and where to read individual reviews. No reviews are generated here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces the read-only nature by stating no reviews are generated. It adds context about returning an aggregate rating and pointers, but does not detail additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness.
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 concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, read-only), the description adequately explains its function. However, it could specify the output format (e.g., JSON structure) for full 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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the tool returns (rating and review location pointers), which is helpful for invocation.
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 aggregates Google ratings and provides pointers to individual reviews, specifying it is a read operation. This differentiates it from siblings like book_strategy_session or get_case_studies, which address different purposes.
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 implicitly indicates this tool is for reading aggregated reviews, not generating them, which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or conditions for not using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_faqsBCommon questions and answers about quotes, pricing policy, contracts and how Juicy Designs works.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that the content covers FAQs, which is consistent but provides no additional behavioral insight (e.g., response format, pagination, or error behavior). It does not contradict 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?
One sentence of 14 words, concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's content. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., mentioning it returns a list), but it avoids fluff.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the output format (e.g., array of objects) or if any filtering is available. For a FAQ retriever, additional context about structure would improve usability.
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 the description does not need to explain them. It adds context about the tool's content (quotes, pricing, etc.), which helps an agent understand what to expect. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that.
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 common questions and answers about specific topics (quotes, pricing, contracts, company workings), which is consistent with the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like get_case_studies or get_client_reviews by content type, though the verb is implicit.
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. The description only lists content areas, lacking context about prerequisites, search limitations, or exclusions. An agent would not know when to prefer this over get_quote or get_service_areas.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_quoteAInspectRequest a free, no-obligation quote from Juicy Designs (a Pretoria digital marketing and design agency). Before calling, read the collected fields back to the user and get explicit confirmation, including consent to be contacted. Does not return a price: Juicy Designs replies with a custom proposal within four working hours. Set consent_to_contact only when the user has actually agreed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Contact name. | |
| Yes | Contact email address. | ||
| phone | No | Contact phone number. | |
| company | No | Company or brand name. | |
| service | Yes | Main service the quote is for. | |
| timeline | No | Optional project timeline. | |
| budget_range | No | Optional budget range in ZAR. Used only to scope the work, never to calculate a price. | |
| project_summary | Yes | Goals, scope, and context in the user's own words (min 20 chars). | |
| consent_to_contact | Yes | Must be true: the user agrees to be contacted (POPIA). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable context: 'Does not return a price: Juicy Designs replies with a custom proposal within four working hours' and the consent requirement. No contradiction with annotations. It fully discloses the tool's behavior.
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 three sentences, all informative and necessary. It front-loads the purpose and then provides usage guidance. 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 no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns: 'Juicy Designs replies with a custom proposal within four working hours.' It covers required steps (read back, consent). With 9 parameters (5 required), it is complete enough. Could mention output format, 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds critical semantics for the consent_to_contact parameter: 'Set consent_to_contact only when the user has actually agreed.' This goes beyond the schema description. For other parameters, the schema descriptions are sufficient.
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: 'Request a free, no-obligation quote from Juicy Designs', specifying the agency and location. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., book_strategy_session, get_case_studies) by being the quote request tool.
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 instructions: 'Before calling, read the collected fields back to the user and get explicit confirmation, including consent to be contacted.' It also clarifies that it does not return a price, setting user expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use sibling tools instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_service_areasAWhere Juicy Designs works: head office, in-person areas, and remote coverage across South Africa.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the types of service areas covered (head office, in-person, remote). This context helps the agent understand the output without contradictions.
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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential 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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It could specify the format (e.g., list or text), but the name implies multiple areas, so it's adequate.
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 baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter information, and the schema is fully covered.
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 what the tool does: it returns the geographical areas where Juicy Designs works, including head office, in-person areas, and remote coverage across South Africa. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like booking or catalog.
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 others. The agent must infer from the description alone, which may not be sufficient for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_service_catalogAList Juicy Designs services with a one-line summary and a reference 'from' floor where one exists. Figures are entry-point 'from' references only, not quotes or estimates. Pricing is scope-dependent and confirmed by a person in a written proposal within four working hours. Never present any figure as a final price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that figures are not final prices, warns against presenting them as such, and explains the pricing confirmation process. This is highly valuable for correct tool usage.
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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It could be slightly tighter, but every sentence serves a clear purpose, and there is no redundancy.
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 input or output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how to interpret its output. It covers the main functionality and important caveats. Minor lack of detail on ordering or pagination is acceptable for this simple list tool.
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% by default. The description adds value by specifying what the tool's output contains (one-line summary and reference floor), which is sufficient given no input 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 tool lists Juicy Designs services with a one-line summary and reference floor. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_quote and get_case_studies by specifying it provides only entry-point references, not final pricing.
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 that figures are entry-point references only and not quotes or estimates, and that pricing is scope-dependent. This implicitly guides the agent to use this tool for initial info and get_quote for actual pricing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
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!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.
