BuilderCheck — NSW builder licence & risk history
Server Details
Is this NSW builder licensed, insolvent or disciplined? 178k+ licences from official registers.
- 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 has a clearly distinct purpose: search_builders finds builders by name and returns slugs, get_builder_risk provides a current risk profile, and get_builder_timeline offers historical events. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_builders, get_builder_risk, get_builder_timeline). The minor difference between 'search' and 'get' is acceptable as they represent different actions (discovery vs retrieval).
Three tools is ideal for this focused domain: search, risk profile, and timeline. Each tool serves a clear need without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of querying builder information: discovery via search, current risk assessment, and historical timeline. For a read-only service, this is complete with no obvious gaps.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_builder_riskARead-onlyInspect
Get the factual risk profile for one builder by slug: NSW licence number/class/status (current, expired, suspended, cancelled), ACN/ABN and ASIC registration status (incl. deregistration/strike-off), disciplinary record count, and computed risk signals such as disciplinary history or licence problems. All facts come from official public registers, archived longitudinally by BuilderCheck. Use when a user asks 'is licensed?', 'is safe to sign a contract with?', or 'has been in trouble?'. Example: slug='acme-building-pty-ltd-1a2b' (get the slug from search_builders first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Builder slug from search_builders, e.g. 'acme-building-pty-ltd-1a2b' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context that data comes from official public registers and is archived longitudinally by BuilderCheck, which is helpful but 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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and outputs, the second provides usage guidance and an example. No filler.
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 a single required parameter (slug), no output schema, and annotations (readOnlyHint), the description is complete. It details what data is returned, how to obtain the slug, and typical use cases. No major 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 100% (slug described). The description adds explicit context: 'Builder slug from search_builders, e.g. 'acme-building-pty-ltd-1a2b'', which reinforces the source and provides an example, 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?
The description clearly states that the tool gets the factual risk profile for one builder by slug, listing specific data elements (licence info, ACN/ABN, disciplinary record, risk signals). It distinguishes from siblings like search_builders and get_builder_timeline.
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 use cases ('is <builder> licensed?', 'is <builder> safe to sign a contract with?', 'has <builder> been in trouble?') and mentions the prerequisite to get the slug from search_builders first, guiding the agent on when and how to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_builder_timelineARead-onlyInspect
Get the dated event timeline for a builder by slug: licence status changes, deregistration/strike-off, disciplinary findings, public warnings, and building work rectification orders. Each event carries its severity (info/watch/risk), the official register it came from, and a flag when the record was deleted upstream and now exists only in BuilderCheck's archive — cite that flag explicitly when present, it is the strongest signal. Returns up to 50 most recent events. Example: slug='acme-building-pty-ltd-1a2b' → '2026-03-14 — [risk] Building work rectification order (nsw.bc.rectification-orders)'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Builder slug from search_builders |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returns up to 50 most recent events, lists event types with severity, register source, and a flag for archived records. It also instructs to cite the archive flag as the strongest signal.
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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains return content (events, severity, register, archive flag) and limits (up to 50 events). It could mention pagination or ordering, but the example and details are sufficient for effective 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?
The input schema has one parameter (slug) with 100% description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining the slug originates from search_builders and providing an example, clarifying the expected format beyond the schema's basic 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a dated event timeline for a builder by slug, listing specific event types (licence status changes, deregistration, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the slug used in search_builders and the focus on timeline vs risk.
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 context on when to use the tool (to get a timeline of events) and includes an example for clarity. While it indirectly implies alternatives (e.g., search_builders to get slug), it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or directly compare with get_builder_risk.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_buildersARead-onlyInspect
Search Australian (currently NSW) builders, contractors and building companies by name; optionally filter by postcode. Returns matching entities with their licence status and a slug to pass to get_builder_risk / get_builder_timeline. Example: query='Acme Building' → '- Acme Building Pty Ltd (Current), 2099 → slug: acme-building-pty-ltd-1a2b'. Names are matched loosely, so try the trading name AND the legal (Pty Ltd) name if the first search misses. Query must be at least 2 characters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Builder or company name, e.g. 'Acme Building' | |
| postcode | No | Optional NSW postcode filter, e.g. '2099' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: geographic scope (NSW), return values (licence status, slug), and matching behavior (loose). The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the search operation. No 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?
Concise yet comprehensive: first sentence front-loads the core action, followed by return details, an example, usage tips, and a constraint. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or filler.
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 search tool without output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values (matching entities, licence status, slug) and usage context (geographic scope, naming hints). Complete and self-contained.
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?
Adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: explains query is a builder name, describes loose matching, gives an example, and clarifies postcode as an optional NSW filter. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description significantly enriches parameter understanding.
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 action: 'Search Australian builders... by name' and specifies the resource (builders, contractors, companies). It distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating the returned slug is intended for get_builder_risk/timeline, making its purpose distinct.
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 helpful usage guidance such as minimum query length, optional postcode filter, loose matching, and the recommendation to try both trading and legal names. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives beyond the slug use.
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!