Explore Raze services, pricing, projects, availability, and confirmed introduction bookings.
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 3.5/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of Raze's public information or booking functionality. There is no overlap; booking, pricing, projects, resources, and services are clearly separated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_available_slots, list_projects). This makes it easy for an agent to predict tool behavior.
With 10 tools, the server covers the main public-facing aspects of Raze (booking, pricing, projects, resources, services) without being overly heavy or thin. Each tool serves a clear purpose.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for a company site: booking lifecycle (including slot checking and creation), pricing, project case studies (list and detail), resources, and services. No obvious gaps for the intended public interaction.
create_bookingAInspectCreate a real Cal.com booking for Raze. Only call this after the visitor selected an available slot and explicitly confirmed the booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| needs | Yes | The visitor's most urgent needs. | |
| notes | No | Context the visitor wants Raze to review before the call. | |
| start | Yes | Selected slot start time as a future UTC ISO date-time ending in Z. | |
| guests | No | Optional guest email addresses. Maximum 5. | |
| website | Yes | Visitor website or company URL. Bare domains such as company.com are acceptable. | |
| services | Yes | Raze services the visitor wants to discuss. | |
| timeZone | Yes | Attendee IANA time zone, for example America/New_York. | |
| confirmed | Yes | Must be true after explicit visitor confirmation. Calls without true are rejected. | |
| attendeeName | Yes | ||
| attendeeEmail | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full behavioral burden. It discloses that the booking is real and requires explicit confirmation, but does not explain side effects (e.g., triggering notifications, creating records) or error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 effectively communicate purpose and usage condition. No superfluous words; front-loaded with key action and resource.
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 10 parameters (8 required) and no output schema, the description is minimal but works for a straightforward creation mutation. Lacks details on return value, idempotency, or error states, leaving some 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?
Schema coverage is 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds value by emphasizing the 'confirmed' parameter must be true, but this is also in the schema. No additional parameter context beyond what 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 'Create a real Cal.com booking for Raze', specifying the verb (create), resource (Cal.com booking), and context (for Raze). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_available_slots' by emphasizing that it's the final creation step.
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 clearly defines when to use the tool: 'Only call this after the visitor selected an available slot and explicitly confirmed the booking.' This provides explicit preconditions and helps avoid misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_available_slotsBInspectCheck available Cal.com time slots for the Raze introduction event. This is read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | End of the search range as an ISO 8601 date or date-time. Must be after start and within 31 days. | |
| start | Yes | Start of the search range as an ISO 8601 date or date-time. | |
| format | No | Cal.com slot response format. Defaults to range. | |
| duration | No | Optional event duration in minutes. | |
| timeZone | No | IANA time zone for returned slots, for example America/New_York. Defaults to UTC. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'read-only' but fails to address other important behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no slots are found.
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, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a behavioral note. 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?
The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the results. This leaves agents without enough information to use the tool effectively.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning. It simply restates the tool's purpose without clarifying how parameters interact or providing context 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 action ('Check'), the resource ('available Cal.com time slots'), and the specific context ('Raze introduction event'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., create_booking, get_pricing) by focusing on slot checking.
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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only notes that the tool is 'read-only', but does not mention that it should be used before creating a booking, nor does it exclude inappropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_booking_profileAInspectGet the Cal.com booking profile, event slug, booking URL, and required fields for agent bookings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behaviors like authentication requirements, read-only nature, or side effects. It only states the output without any behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, 16 words, directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the return items. Could be more detailed on structure but sufficient for a simple 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info.
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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'Cal.com booking profile', and lists the specific items returned (event slug, booking URL, required fields). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_booking_url' by including additional profile details.
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 such as 'get_booking_url'. The description does not provide any usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_booking_urlAInspectGet the public human-facing booking URLs for Raze.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without mentioning rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'Raze' refers to.
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 wasted words, front-loading the purpose effectively.
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 and no annotations, the description should ideally explain the format or count of returned URLs. It is minimal but adequate for a simple retrieval 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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds meaning by specifying the output (booking URLs) and context (for Raze). A baseline of 4 applies since no parameter details are 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'public human-facing booking URLs for Raze', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_booking or get_available_slots.
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 (e.g., get_booking_profile or get_available_slots), nor any context on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_pricingAInspectGet the public Raze engagement minimum, scoping policy, services, and CTA URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes the data is 'public,' implying a safe read operation, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects. This basic transparency is adequate for a simple tool but lacks richer behavioral detail.
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 concise sentence that clearly enumerates the resource components. Every word contributes meaning, with no repetition or filler. It is optimally concise for the tool's simplicity.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it names the specific data items retrievable. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether the pricing is for a specific service or the entire Raze engagement, or how the CTA URLs are structured, but overall it adequately covers the minimal context needed.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly lists the specific data points to be returned (engagement minimum, scoping policy, services, CTA URLs), which adds context beyond the empty schema, even though no parameter explanation 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'public Raze engagement minimum, scoping policy, services, and CTA URLs.' It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like list_services or get_booking_url, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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 implies usage by stating what data is retrieved, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. Since the tool is a simple getter with no parameters, the implied usage is sufficient but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_projectAInspectGet one public project case study summary by slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectslug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations. Description only states basic action without disclosing what happens on missing slug, required permissions, or return 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with 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?
Adequate for a simple get-by-identifier tool with 1 param. Lacks details on return format and error handling, but enough for basic use.
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?
Description adds 'by slug' to parameter context beyond enum schema. Schema coverage 0% but description partly compensates by clarifying parameter purpose.
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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'one public project case study summary' by slug. Distinguishes from sibling 'list_projects' which lists multiple.
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?
Implied usage: use when you need a single project by slug. No explicit when-not-to or alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_site_summaryCInspectGet the public Raze site summary and key URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state behavioral traits like lack of side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden and falls short.
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, focused sentence with 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 the absence of an output schema, the description should elaborate on what the summary includes and how key URLs are structured. It is too terse to fully guide an AI agent.
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?
With no parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond the tool name. It mentions 'public' and 'key URLs' but does not detail the return structure.
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 a 'site summary and key URLs' with the verb 'Get'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on bookings, projects, and resources.
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 invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_projectsAInspectList public Raze project case studies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies read-only and public access but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or any potential side effects. Adequate for a simple list operation.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. Front-loaded with the key action and resource.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose. It could mention that it returns a list of case studies or whether it supports filtering, but given simplicity, it is nearly complete.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage). Since there are no parameters, the description naturally adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 4 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 'List public Raze project case studies' clearly states the verb (list) and the specific resource (public Raze project case studies). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_project' which likely retrieves a single project.
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 like 'get_project' or other listing tools. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_resourcesBInspectList public Raze resource collections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only adds 'public' but does not disclose other behavioral traits like idempotency, safety, or rate limits.
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?
Single, terse sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant 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?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not clarify what a 'resource collection' entails or what fields are returned, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 has no parameters and 100% coverage, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 lists public Raze resource collections, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects and 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 versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_servicesAInspectList public Raze service pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or what constitutes a 'service page'.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the action. Every word is relevant and no extraneous content.
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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but could be more complete by explaining what service pages are or any implicit constraints. It meets the minimum viable standard.
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, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but no additional meaning is needed beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('public Raze service pages'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' or 'list_resources' by specifying '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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_site_summary or list_projects). The description does not mention context or exclusions.
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!