GBG Loqate - Reach
Server Details
Verify addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers with confidence scores.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- gbgplc/lqt
- GitHub Stars
- 2
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 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct function: policy management (list/show) vs. verification of specific contact types (address, email, phone, combined). No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (list_policies, show_policy, verify_address, etc.), making it easy to predict tool purpose from name.
Six tools is an appropriate number for a verification service with policy management. Each tool has a clear role, and the set is neither bloated nor sparse.
Core verification capabilities (address, email, phone, combined) and policy viewing are covered. Minor gaps exist (no bulk verification or policy creation), but the surface is largely complete for typical use cases.
Available Tools
6 toolslist_policiesARead-onlyInspect
List available decisioning policies (strict, shipping, standard, permissive) with their thresholds.
| 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, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds value by specifying the exact policies listed and that thresholds are included, providing useful behavioral context 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core functionality immediately. There is no unnecessary 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?
The description covers purpose and lists the policy types, but does not hint at the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on what is returned (e.g., list of policy names and thresholds) would improve 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?
No parameters exist, so the description does not need to add parameter info. Schema coverage is 100% (no params). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not contradict or add anything misleading.
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 available decisioning policies along with specifics like the four policy names (strict, shipping, standard, permissive) and thresholds. This differentiates it from siblings like show_policy which likely shows details of a single policy.
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 use for listing all policies, and the sibling show_policy suggests an alternative for viewing a single policy. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
show_policyARead-onlyInspect
Show full details for a specific decisioning policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Policy name: strict shipping standard or permissive |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so agent knows it's safe. Description adds minimal behavioral context ('show full details') but does not describe what 'full details' includes or any constraints.
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, 9 words, front-loaded with verb. No unnecessary 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?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, description is sufficient to understand purpose. However, lack of output format may cause some uncertainty.
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?
Input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'name' parameter. Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema description.
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 'Show full details for a specific decisioning policy' clearly identifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_policies (which lists all policies) and verification tools.
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 when needing details of a specific policy, but does not explicitly contrast with list_policies or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_addressARead-onlyInspect
Verify an address against Loqate's global reference data. Returns a confidence score (0-1), verification status, and a policy-driven accept/review/reject recommendation. Requires a Loqate API key — pass it via the 'key' field (get one at account.loqate.com).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Loqate API key — required unless the server has one configured or the request carries an Authorization: Bearer header (get one at account.loqate.com) | |
| policy | No | Policy name: strict shipping standard (default) or permissive | |
| address | No | Full address string (free-form — use this OR structured fields below) | |
| country | No | ISO 2-letter country code (e.g. US GB DE) | |
| options | No | Loqate API options (e.g. GeoCode, Certify, DefaultCountry, OutputCasing) | |
| premise | No | Premise or house number | |
| address2 | No | Second address line | |
| address3 | No | Third address line | |
| address4 | No | Fourth address line | |
| address5 | No | Fifth address line | |
| address6 | No | Sixth address line | |
| address7 | No | Seventh address line | |
| address8 | No | Eighth address line | |
| building | No | Building name | |
| latitude | No | Latitude for reverse geocode | |
| locality | No | City or town | |
| post_box | No | PO Box number | |
| postcode | No | Postal or ZIP code | |
| longitude | No | Longitude for reverse geocode | |
| admin_area | No | State or province | |
| verify_key | No | Custom address verification API key (overrides LOQATE_VERIFY_KEY env var) | |
| verify_url | No | Custom address verification endpoint URL (overrides LOQATE_VERIFY_URL env var) | |
| organization | No | Organization or business name | |
| sub_building | No | Sub-building (e.g. apartment, suite) | |
| thoroughfare | No | Street name | |
| delivery_address | No | Full delivery address | |
| delivery_address1 | No | Delivery address line 1 | |
| delivery_address2 | No | Delivery address line 2 | |
| delivery_address3 | No | Delivery address line 3 | |
| delivery_address4 | No | Delivery address line 4 | |
| delivery_address5 | No | Delivery address line 5 | |
| delivery_address6 | No | Delivery address line 6 | |
| delivery_address7 | No | Delivery address line 7 | |
| delivery_address8 | No | Delivery address line 8 | |
| dependent_locality | No | Dependent locality (e.g. neighborhood) | |
| sub_building_floor | No | Floor number | |
| dependent_thoroughfare | No | Dependent street name | |
| sub_administrative_area | No | Sub administrative area (e.g. county) | |
| double_dependent_locality | No | Double dependent locality | |
| super_administrative_area | No | Super administrative area (e.g. region) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description aligns by presenting a read operation (verify) and adds context about requiring an API key and the return format. However, it does not disclose behavioral details beyond annotations, such as rate limits or data retention.
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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose and return values. However, given the complexity of 40 parameters, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., hinting at free-form vs structured address use).
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 description covers the core purpose, return values, and a key prerequisite but does not explain the 'policy' parameter or guide parameter selection (free-form vs structured address). No output schema is provided, so description must rely on itself; it is adequate but incomplete.
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% (all 40 parameters have descriptions). The tool description only adds context for the 'key' parameter (requirement explanation). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value 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 tool verifies an address against Loqate's global reference data and specifies the return values (confidence score, verification status, policy-driven recommendation). It distinguishes itself from sibling verification tools (verify_contact, verify_email, verify_phone) by focusing on addresses, and from policy tools (list_policies, show_policy) by mentioning policy-driven recommendation.
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 use for address verification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_contact or when to choose free-form address versus structured address fields. It mentions a prerequisite (API key) but no guidance on when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_contactARead-onlyInspect
Verify address, email, and/or phone together. Returns individual results plus an overall recommendation (most conservative of all provided fields). Requires a Loqate API key — pass it via the 'key' field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Loqate API key — required unless the server has one configured or the request carries an Authorization: Bearer header | |
| No | Email address to verify | ||
| phone | No | Phone number to verify | |
| policy | No | Policy name: strict shipping standard (default) or permissive | |
| address | No | Full address string | |
| country | No | ISO 2-letter country code | |
| options | No | Loqate API options (e.g. GeoCode, Certify, DefaultCountry, OutputCasing) | |
| premise | No | Premise or house number | |
| address2 | No | Second address line | |
| address3 | No | Third address line | |
| address4 | No | Fourth address line | |
| address5 | No | Fifth address line | |
| address6 | No | Sixth address line | |
| address7 | No | Seventh address line | |
| address8 | No | Eighth address line | |
| building | No | Building name | |
| latitude | No | Latitude for reverse geocode | |
| locality | No | City or town | |
| post_box | No | PO Box number | |
| postcode | No | Postal or ZIP code | |
| longitude | No | Longitude for reverse geocode | |
| admin_area | No | State or province | |
| verify_key | No | Custom address verification API key (overrides LOQATE_VERIFY_KEY env var) | |
| verify_url | No | Custom address verification endpoint URL (overrides LOQATE_VERIFY_URL env var) | |
| organization | No | Organization or business name | |
| sub_building | No | Sub-building (e.g. apartment, suite) | |
| thoroughfare | No | Street name | |
| delivery_address | No | Full delivery address | |
| delivery_address1 | No | Delivery address line 1 | |
| delivery_address2 | No | Delivery address line 2 | |
| delivery_address3 | No | Delivery address line 3 | |
| delivery_address4 | No | Delivery address line 4 | |
| delivery_address5 | No | Delivery address line 5 | |
| delivery_address6 | No | Delivery address line 6 | |
| delivery_address7 | No | Delivery address line 7 | |
| delivery_address8 | No | Delivery address line 8 | |
| dependent_locality | No | Dependent locality (e.g. neighborhood) | |
| sub_building_floor | No | Floor number | |
| dependent_thoroughfare | No | Dependent street name | |
| sub_administrative_area | No | Sub administrative area (e.g. county) | |
| double_dependent_locality | No | Double dependent locality | |
| super_administrative_area | No | Super administrative area |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), description adds that it returns individual results plus an overall conservative recommendation, enhancing transparency.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences covering purpose and key requirement with no waste.
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 complexity (42 params, no output schema), description explains output type but lacks details on address verification fields or failure 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%, so baseline 3. Description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond schema; explains overall recommendation logic but not parameter details.
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 verifies address, email, and/or phone together, and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle each individually.
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?
Provides clear prerequisite (Loqate API key via 'key' field) and indicates combined usage, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus individual verifiers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_emailARead-onlyInspect
Verify an email address via Loqate. Returns confidence, risk level, and accept/review/reject recommendation. Requires a Loqate API key — pass it via the 'key' field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Loqate API key — required unless the server has one configured or the request carries an Authorization: Bearer header | |
| Yes | Email address to verify | ||
| policy | No | Policy name: strict shipping standard (default) or permissive |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only and open-world. Description adds: external service name (Loqate), return fields, and key requirement. Provides useful operational context 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 clear sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with action and outcome.
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?
Covers purpose and return values well, but fails to describe the 'policy' parameter. Given no output schema, the description provides adequate context for core functionality but leaves a gap for a parameter that could affect 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 already describes all three parameters with good detail. Description adds a note on key requirement but adds no new semantics for email or policy. Baseline 3 for 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?
Clearly states it verifies email addresses and lists returned fields (confidence, risk level, recommendation). Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling verification tools, but the resource is specific enough.
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 sibling verification tools. Only mentions a prerequisite (API key) but does not elaborate on appropriate contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_phoneARead-onlyInspect
Verify a phone number via Loqate. Returns confidence, number type, carrier, and accept/review/reject recommendation. Requires a Loqate API key — pass it via the 'key' field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Loqate API key — required unless the server has one configured or the request carries an Authorization: Bearer header | |
| phone | Yes | Phone number (E.164 format preferred e.g. +442071234567) | |
| policy | No | Policy name: strict shipping standard (default) or permissive | |
| country | No | ISO 2-letter country code (helps with parsing if no country prefix) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that an API key is required, which is a behavioral detail not in annotations. 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?
The description is two sentences, clear and to the point. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for purpose and requirements), but it is efficient 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 no output schema, the description lists return values. It covers the key requirement and parameter hints. It does not explain error handling or rate limits, but for a straightforward verification tool, it is fairly 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the key (required unless configured), phone (E.164 preferred), policy (default strict shipping standard vs permissive), and country (ISO 2-letter code), going beyond schema descriptions.
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: verifying a phone number via Loqate. It specifies the return values (confidence, number type, carrier, recommendation) and distinguishes from siblings like verify_address or verify_email.
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 mentions the API key requirement and implies use for phone verification, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on policy or country parameter usage is 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!