toolzy
Server Details
Recherche et location d'outils entre particuliers en France via Toolzy.
- 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 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search for tools, get detailed info, and check availability/pricing. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_tools, get_tool_details, check_availability), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Three tools is a reasonable starting point for a tool rental server, covering search, details, and availability. However, it could benefit from additional tools like booking or user management.
The tool set covers the discovery and information phase but lacks a booking or reservation tool, leaving an obvious gap in the lifecycle for a rental service.
Available Tools
3 toolscheck_availabilityVérifier la disponibilitéAInspect
Vérifie si un outil est disponible pour des dates données et calcule le prix total. Utilisez ce tool quand l'utilisateur demande la disponibilité, veut savoir le prix pour une période, ou demande 'est-ce disponible ce weekend ?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | Date de fin (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| tool_url | Yes | URL de l'annonce Toolzy (ex: https://www.toolzy.io/listings/perceuse-makita) | |
| start_date | Yes | Date de début (YYYY-MM-DD) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the dual functionality (checking availability and calculating price) but does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or error handling. It is adequate but not detailed.
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 long, with the first sentence stating the core functionality and the second providing usage guidance. It is highly concise and front-loaded with purpose.
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 query tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and basic behavior. It does not address error scenarios, but it is complete enough for typical 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.
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 function: checking availability and calculating total price for a tool given dates. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_tool_details' (which retrieves details) and 'search_tools' (which searches for 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: when the user asks about availability, wants to know the price for a period, or asks questions like 'is it available this weekend?'. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools but is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_tool_detailsDétails d'un outilAInspect
Récupère les informations détaillées d'un outil sur Toolzy : prix, caractéristiques, photos. Utilisez ce tool quand l'utilisateur veut en savoir plus sur un outil spécifique après avoir vu les résultats de recherche.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_url | Yes | URL de l'annonce Toolzy (ex: https://www.toolzy.io/listings/perceuse-makita) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions return content (price, features, photos) but lacks explicit safety guarantees (e.g., read-only, idempotent). Infers read operation but could be more transparent.
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, completely efficient. Front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance, zero 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?
Given low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. Could briefly mention return format, but not necessary for clarity.
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% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 the tool retrieves detailed information (price, features, photos) for a specific tool on Toolzy. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning usage after search results.
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?
Explicit guidance: 'Use this tool when the user wants to know more about a specific tool after seeing search results.' Implicitly excludes initial search (search_tools) and availability checks (check_availability).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_toolsRechercher des outilsAInspect
Recherche d'outils et équipements disponibles à la location sur Toolzy. Utilisez ce tool quand l'utilisateur cherche un outil, veut louer du matériel, ou demande ce qui est disponible près de chez lui (ex: 'perceuse à Bordeaux', 'tondeuse à gazon', 'outils de bricolage').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Ville pour filtrer les résultats | |
| limit | No | Nombre max de résultats (défaut: 10, max: 20) | |
| query | No | Recherche textuelle (nom d'outil, marque, type) | |
| zipcode | No | Code postal (filtre par préfixe) | |
| category | No | Catégorie d'outils | |
| coaching | No | Filtrer sur accompagnement disponible | |
| delivery | No | Filtrer sur livraison disponible | |
| price_max | No | Prix maximum par jour en euros |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the tool searches for rental items, but does not mention response format, pagination, or any side effects. Basic transparency, but could disclose expected output structure.
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 concise sentences: first defines the core function, second provides usage guidance with concrete examples. Every sentence adds value, 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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It lacks details on return behavior (e.g., result format, sorting, empty results). The sibling tools hint at structure but description itself could be more 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% with each parameter described. The tool description does not add new parameter-level information beyond usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description reinforces context but does not enhance parameter semantics.
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 tools and equipment available for rent, with specific examples. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating when to use search versus check_availability or get_tool_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?
The description explicitly tells when to use the tool ('when the user is looking for a tool, wants to rent equipment, or asks what is available near them'). It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the context and examples provide sufficient guidance relative to siblings.
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!