ServiceWindow — SWFL Food Truck Marketplace
Server Details
Verified food truck marketplace for Southwest Florida. Search trucks and browse listings.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- servicewindowapp/servicewindow
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_trucks finds trucks by criteria, get_truck provides details on a specific truck, and list_marketplace browses different boards (requests, events, shifts, etc.). No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_truck, list_marketplace, search_trucks), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 3 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a marketplace that includes 7 distinct boards and multiple resource types. While the count is technically acceptable, it suggests missing functionality.
The tool set covers only read operations (search, browse, get details) but lacks any create, update, or delete tools for listings, trucks, or user actions. This is a significant gap for a functional marketplace.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_truckAInspect
Get full details on a specific verified food truck by its profile ID. Use after search_trucks to get more detail on a specific result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The truck profile UUID, obtained from a search_trucks result. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states it gets details, with no disclosure of behavioral traits like auth needs, performance, or error handling. Minimal additional context beyond purpose.
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 front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance.
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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage context. Could mention what kind of details are returned, but not critical for agent selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the parameter's purpose from schema ('obtained from a search_trucks result'), adding no new meaning.
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 'Get full details on a specific verified food truck by its profile ID', specifying verb, resource, and method. Distinguishes from sibling 'search_trucks' by indicating it is used after a search for more detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use after search_trucks to get more detail on a specific result', giving clear context for usage. Does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_marketplaceAInspect
Browse active listings on the ServiceWindow marketplace. Seven boards available: "request" (event organizers/HOAs seeking trucks), "event" (upcoming events trucks can apply to), "shift" (trucks posting their available dates), "venue" (venues seeking recurring food truck partnerships), "parking" (parking spots and commissary storage for rent), "vendor" (industry services and suppliers), "jobs" (food truck industry employment).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Filter listings by city in Southwest Florida. | |
| board | Yes | Which marketplace board to browse. | |
| limit | No | Maximum results to return. Default: 10. Max: 24. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions board types but does not state that the operation is read-only, lack of modification, or any authentication or rate limit requirements. The tool name 'list' suggests read, but no explicit confirmation.
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: purpose statement followed by board explanations. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains 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 lacks an output schema and annotations. The description does not explain what the output contains (e.g., listing titles, descriptions, contact info) or how pagination works beyond the schema's limit parameter. This leaves the agent with incomplete information.
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 significant semantic value for the board parameter by explaining each enum value (e.g., 'request (event organizers/HOAs seeking trucks)'). It does not add for city and limit, but the board parameter is key.
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: 'Browse active listings on the ServiceWindow marketplace.' It lists the seven available boards with brief explanations, differentiating from sibling tools like get_truck and search_trucks which focus on individual trucks or truck searches.
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 listing board types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools or provide context for choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_trucksAInspect
Search verified food truck operators on the ServiceWindow marketplace in Southwest Florida (SWFL). Filter by cuisine type, city, or keyword. Returns truck profiles including name, cuisine, city, bio, and a direct booking URL. Coverage: 21 cities across Lee, Collier, Sarasota, Charlotte, and Hendry counties. All returned trucks are verified operators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City in Southwest Florida. Examples: "Fort Myers", "Cape Coral", "Naples", "Sarasota", "Bonita Springs", "Estero", "Punta Gorda", "Port Charlotte", "Lehigh Acres". | |
| limit | No | Maximum results to return. Default: 10. Max: 24. | |
| cuisine | No | Cuisine type to filter by. Examples: "BBQ", "Mexican", "Italian", "American", "Asian", "Seafood", "Dessert", "Mediterranean", "Caribbean". | |
| keyword | No | Free-text search across truck name, cuisine type, and bio description. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes full burden. It discloses return fields, coverage area, and verification status, which is sufficient for a read-only search tool. No side effects or auth needs are mentioned, but none are expected.
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 plus a coverage note, front-loading the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value with 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?
The description covers purpose, filtering, return content, and coverage area. Without an output schema, it adequately describes what to expect. Minor omissions like pagination or error behavior do not detract significantly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about filtering and coverage but does not add significant detail beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool searches for verified food truck operators on a specific marketplace, with filtering options. It distinguishes from siblings (get_truck and list_marketplace) by specifying 'search' and 'verified operators'.
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 what the tool does and its filtering capabilities, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or exclude cases. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.
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!