Vind en vergelijk 2.000+ Nederlandse marketingbureaus op specialisme, stad en cases. Vier MCP-tools geven agents toegang tot profielen, zoekresultaten en de RFQ-flow.
Zoek een specifiek bureau op handelsnaam, statutaire naam of domein (bijv. name='Yourcrew' of domain='yourcrew.online') en krijg de slug voor get_agency_profile. Geeft max. 10 kandidaten met publieke handelsnaam (name), legal_name als de statutaire naam afwijkt, city en domain. Voor gerankt bureau-advies op criteria gebruik je search_agencies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| domain | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that a maximum of 10 candidates are returned and lists the included attributes (name, legal_name, city, domain). It also signals that results are not ranked by criteria, which is a useful behavioral trait.
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 and front-loads the core purpose and examples. Every sentence contributes value: the first defines the lookup behavior, the second states output fields and the alternative tool.
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 adequately describes the return fields and the limit. It also gives concrete examples and a sibling alternative. However, because parameter semantics for city and limit are incomplete, the description is not fully comprehensive for all possible call variants.
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 0% and there are 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'name' and 'domain' with examples, and 'max. 10' hints at the limit, but it does not explain the 'city' parameter or the 'limit' parameter directly. This leaves a significant semantic gap.
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 a specific verb ('Zoek') and resource ('bureau'), and specifies the search keys: trade name, statutory name, or domain. It also explains the purpose of the result (getting the slug for get_agency_profile), which clearly differentiates it from search_agencies.
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 says when to use this tool: to find a specific agency by name or domain. It also provides a direct alternative, search_agencies, for ranked advice on criteria, making the selection between siblings unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Haal het volledige publieke profiel van een marketingbureau op aan de hand van zijn slug. Geeft 404 als de slug niet bestaat of het bureau niet bereikt wil worden via MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Er zijn geen annotations, dus de beschrijving draagt de volledige verantwoordelijkheid. Ze discloseert een belangrijk gedrag: 404 bij niet-bestaande slug of als het bureau niet via MCP bereikt wil worden. 'Publieke profiel' signaleert bovendien dat het om een leesoperatie zonder gevoelige data gaat. Details over auth of rate limits ontbreken, maar voor een eenvoudige getter is de belangrijkste foutconditie gedekt.
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?
De beschrijving is één zin zonder overbodige woorden. De actie en de resource staan vooraan, en de nuttige 404-conditie wordt compact toegevoegd. Elke zin draagt bij.
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?
Voor een tool met één parameter en geen outputschema dekt de beschrijving het doel en de belangrijkste foutconditie. Er ontbreekt echter expliciete verwijzing naar wanneer je dit boven de siblings gebruikt, en omdat er geen outputschema is, wordt niet duidelijk welke profielvelden terugkomen. Het is adequaat maar niet volledig zelfstandig.
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?
De schema-dekking is 0%, dus de beschrijving moet compenseren. Ze zegt dat de slug het identificatiemiddel is, wat minimale betekenis toevoegt boven het schema. Maar er wordt niet uitgelegd wat een slug precies is, hoe die eruitziet of waar je die vindt, dus de compensatie blijft beperkt.
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?
De beschrijving geeft een specifiek werkwoord ('Haal ... op'), een duidelijk object ('het volledige publieke profiel van een marketingbureau') en de identificatiemethode ('aan de hand van zijn slug'). Het onderscheidt zich impliciet van sibling-tools zoals find_agency en search_agencies omdat het om het volledige profiel gaat in plaats van zoeken of vinden.
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?
Het gebruik is impliciet: je gebruikt dit wanneer je al een slug hebt en het volledige publieke profiel nodig hebt. Er wordt echter geen expliciete vergelijking gemaakt met find_agency of search_agencies, en er staat niet wanneer je dit juist niet moet gebruiken.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Zoek Nederlandse marketingbureaus op specialismes, target_industry (de doelgroep-branche die het bureau bedient), vestigingsstad, B2B/B2C, bedrijfsomvang, budget en optionele radius (near_city = elke NL-stad, óf near_lat/near_lon, samen met within_km). specialisms filtert hard op de taxonomie; niet-herkende termen komen terug in filters.specialisms.unmatched (allemaal onbekend → 0 resultaten + hint). budget_band sluit alleen bureaus uit met een bekend conflicterend tarief (zie filters.budget_band.note). Geeft max. 20 gerangschikte slugs met publieke handelsnaam (name, plus legal_name als de statutaire naam afwijkt) en 1-regel NL onderbouwing, plus totalMatched (aantal treffers vóór de limiet). Lees de resource categories://list voor de geldige waarden.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| near_lat | No | ||
| near_lon | No | ||
| near_city | No | ||
| within_km | No | ||
| budget_band | No | ||
| specialisms | No | ||
| target_industry | No | ||
| company_size_band | No | ||
| client_orientation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that specialisms filters hard on the taxonomy, that unknown terms surface in filters.specialisms.unmatched, that all-unknown terms yield 0 results with a hint, and that budget_band only excludes agencies with a known conflicting rate. It also describes the result cap of 20 and the totalMatched count.
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?
Although longer than typical descriptions, every sentence earns its place by conveying operational detail: filter semantics, edge cases, output shape, and a pointer to the allowed-values resource. The main search action is front-loaded, and the additional detail is organized without fluff.
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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the result fields including slug, name, legal_name, a one-line Dutch rationale, and totalMatched, while also covering edge-case behavior and pointing to the taxonomy source. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking this tool correctly appears to be missing.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining nearly every parameter: specialisms, target_industry, city, B2B/B2C orientation, company size, budget, and the near_city/near_lat/near_lon plus within_km radius combination. It adds semantics beyond the raw schema, such as hard filtering and unmatched-term behavior, and defers valid-value enumeration to categories://list.
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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Zoek Nederlandse marketingbureaus' and enumerates the available search dimensions (specialisms, target_industry, city, B2B/B2C, size, budget, radius). It also clarifies the output as a ranked list of slugs, distinguishing it from the singular profile-oriented siblings like find_agency and get_agency_profile.
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 establishes the search context and the filtering semantics that an agent needs to use the tool correctly, and it points to categories://list for valid values. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools or when not to use it, so it falls one step short of fully explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Dien een Request-For-Quote in bij marketingburos.nl. De aanvraag wordt doorgestuurd naar de Phase 5 release-queue; operator releaset handmatig naar de bureaus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| website | No | ||
| industry | Yes | ||
| timeline | Yes | ||
| agencySize | Yes | ||
| budgetBand | Yes | ||
| companySize | Yes | ||
| contactName | Yes | ||
| culturalFit | Yes | ||
| specialisms | Yes | ||
| toelichting | No | ||
| contactEmail | Yes | ||
| contactPhone | No | ||
| contactCompany | Yes | ||
| industryFreetext | No | ||
| clientOrientation | No | ||
| selectedAgencyIds | Yes | ||
| specialistFullServiceSlider | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a significant non-obvious behavior: the submission is not sent directly to agencies but forwarded to a 'Phase 5 release-queue' where an operator manually releases it. This is valuable transparency beyond what the tool name suggests, though it omits other details like side effects or confirmation 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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a key workflow detail without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 complexity — 17 parameters, 12 required, no output schema, and no annotations — the description is far too sparse. It provides helpful workflow context (queue and manual release) but leaves the agent without essential information on required inputs, expected outcomes, or how to obtain values like selectedAgencyIds. It is not sufficient for correct invocation.
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 description contains zero parameter-level information, while the schema covers none of the 17 parameters. With no descriptions for required fields like specialisms, budgetBand, timeline, or selectedAgencyIds, an agent has no guidance on how to populate the request. The description fails entirely to compensate for the schema's 0% 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Dien een Request-For-Quote in bij marketingburos.nl' clearly states the action (submitting an RFQ) and the target platform. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_agency, get_agency_profile, and search_agencies, which are all query/read operations, making the submission intent unmistakable.
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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: whenever an RFQ needs to be submitted. However, it offers no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it, such as emphasizing that search tools should be used first to discover agencies before submitting. The queue/release detail hints at workflow but does not give clear usage criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct phase: exact name/domain lookup (find_agency), criteria-based ranked search (search_agencies), profile retrieval (get_agency_profile), and RFQ submission (submit_rfq). The descriptions explicitly differentiate find_agency from search_agencies, removing any ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: find_agency, get_agency_profile, search_agencies, submit_rfq. The verbs are short, active, and clearly reflect each operation with no mixed conventions.
Four tools is a compact, well-scoped set for the server's purpose: discovering, inspecting, and contacting marketing agencies. Each tool has a clear role and no redundancy exists.
The core journey is covered: find/search agencies, retrieve full profiles via slug, and submit RFQs. Minor gaps remain, such as no status tracking for submitted RFQs and no direct tool for listing valid category values (though exposed as a resource).