MCP server for meseriasi.ro, a Romanian homeowner-tradesperson marketplace.
Create a new project on meseriasi.ro as a homeowner. Notifies nearby tradespeople automatically. Requires the caller to supply a valid Supabase access token in the "access_token" argument.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Short descriptive title for the project (max 255 chars) | |
| budget | No | Approximate budget in RON (optional) | |
| location | Yes | City / address where the work is needed | |
| tradeType | Yes | Category of trade required (e.g. "electrician", "instalator") | |
| description | No | Detailed description of the work needed | |
| access_token | Yes | Supabase JWT access token for the homeowner account |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: automatic notification of nearby tradespeople and the requirement for a Supabase access token. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or error conditions, but the disclosed behaviors are important.
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, short and front-loaded. It immediately states the purpose and then adds key behavioral and auth details without 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 the schema covers all parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a high-level overview including automatic notification and auth requirement. It could elaborate on return values or failure modes, but it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.
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 the input schema already describes all parameters with individual descriptions. The description adds minor context (homeowner role, access token requirement) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Create', the resource 'project', and the context 'on meseriasi.ro as a homeowner'. It also mentions automatic notification of tradespeople, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tradespeople or start_conversation.
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 indicates it is for homeowners and requires a valid access token. It implies usage when creating a project but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. However, the context is clear and the sibling tools are sufficiently different.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch the full profile of a tradesperson by their UUID (or legacy WordPress integer ID). Includes bio, location, trade type, and bid statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Tradesperson UUID or legacy integer ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation and lists included fields, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the profile is cached. Basic description with no depth.
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, no wasted words. The most important information (what it does, what it returns) is front-loaded. Efficient and to the point.
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 fetch operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return fields (bio, location, trade type, bid statistics). It could mention common errors or edge cases, but it is sufficient for basic 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% with one parameter 'id' described as a string. The description adds value by specifying that the ID can be a UUID or a legacy WordPress integer ID, which is not in the schema description. This clarifes acceptable input formats.
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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full profile of a tradesperson'. The description explicitly lists included fields (bio, location, trade type, bid statistics) and the identification methods (UUID or legacy integer ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tradespeople which returns a list, and create_project which creates.
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?
Implied usage: when you have a tradesperson's UUID or legacy ID. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The sibling tools are different enough to infer use cases, but the description does not provide a direct comparison or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Send a one-time password (OTP) to the user's email so they can verify their identity before starting a conversation with a tradesperson. Call this first, then call start_conversation with the OTP the user receives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The homeowner's email address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description discloses the action (send email OTP) and purpose (verify identity before conversation). It lacks details on potential side effects like rate limits or expiration, but for a simple tool it is adequate.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and purpose, the second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage. Could mention possible errors or response, but it is largely 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 a clear description for the email parameter. The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'one-time password to the user's email'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating it should be called before start_conversation.
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 ordering guidance: 'Call this first, then call start_conversation with the OTP the user receives.' It does not mention when not to use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for tradespeople on meseriasi.ro by location and/or category (trade type). Returns a paginated list of matching profiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| category | No | Trade type / profession category (e.g. "electrician", "instalator", "zugrav") | |
| location | No | City or region name to filter by (e.g. "București", "Cluj-Napoca") | |
| per_page | No | Results per page, max 50 (default 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination ('Returns a paginated list'), which is a behavioral trait, but lacks details on sorting, default behavior when no parameters are supplied, authentication requirements, or error cases. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, front-loading the action and result. Every word is meaningful, with 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?
Given 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and output. However, it omits details about result format, sorting, allowed combinations of parameters, and pagination semantics (e.g., how to navigate pages). Completeness is adequate but not thorough.
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 each parameter adequately described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema ('by location and/or category' maps to 'location' and 'category' parameters). 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 verb (Search for), resource (tradespeople), platform (meseriasi.ro), and search criteria (location and/or category). It also describes the output (paginated list of profiles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project or get_tradesperson_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 implies usage for finding tradespeople but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tradesperson_profile or start_conversation. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Verify the OTP sent to the user's email and start a direct conversation with a tradesperson. Creates a homeowner account automatically if the email is new.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| otp | Yes | The 6-digit OTP code the user received by email | |
| Yes | The homeowner's email address (same as used in request_chat_otp) | ||
| message | Yes | The initial message to send to the tradesperson | |
| tradesperson_id | Yes | UUID of the tradesperson to contact |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the auto-creation side effect and OTP verification, but does not cover error conditions (e.g., invalid OTP), rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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, front-loading the key action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?
The description explains purpose and side effects adequately for a 4-param tool without output schema. It lacks detail on return values or error handling, but covers essential behavioral context.
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 descriptions. The description adds minor context (e.g., email ties to request_chat_otp, OTP digit count) but does not significantly enhance meaning 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's purpose: verifying an OTP, starting a conversation, and auto-creating an account if new. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling 'request_chat_otp'.
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 context (after requesting OTP) and notes account auto-creation for new emails, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references. No exclusions are mentioned.
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!
Marian Matinca's portfolio as MCP tools: projects, blog, profile, results. Read-only, RO+EN.
MCP server for Mikhail (ManSio)'s engineering portfolio: projects, principles, lab, evidence.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: project creation, profile retrieval, OTP request, tradesperson search, and conversation initiation. No two tools have overlapping purposes, ensuring clear agent selection.
Tools generally follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_project, search_tradespeople). Minor inconsistency: 'tradesperson_profile' uses singular while 'tradespeople' uses plural, but overall pattern is consistent and readable.
With 5 tools covering project creation, search, profiles, and chat, the set is well-scoped for a homeowner-tradesperson matching server. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy.
Core workflow is covered (create project, search, start conversation), but notable gaps exist: no tools for updating/deleting projects, viewing bids, or managing conversations. Agents may face dead ends.