ShipMyCar Vehicle Logistics Quote Connector
Server Details
UK/EU and international car transport quotes with HMRC, IVA, DVLA and logistics costings.
- 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 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct stage in the quote generation workflow: getting requirements, updating drafts, and generating the final quote. There is no functional overlap, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'quote_' prefix, making the naming predictable and easy to parse (generate, get_requirements, update_draft).
Three tools cover the core quote generation workflow without excessive redundancy. While a broader system might include listing or cancellation, the scope is appropriately narrow for a 'quote connector'.
The tool set provides a complete lifecycle for generating a quote from a draft: inspect requirements, update with missing info, and generate. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolsquote_generateGenerate quoteAInspect
Use this after the user explicitly confirms a complete ShipMyCar quote draft. It calculates pricing, writes a private quote continuation/API usage record, and returns a continueQuoteUrl. It does not send email or create a public booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft | Yes | Complete MCP quote draft. | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to generate the quote. | |
| contactConsent | No | Set true only when the user consents to storing supplied contact details in the continuation payload. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | No | |
| draft | Yes | |
| quote | No | |
| status | No | |
| details | No | |
| message | No | |
| success | Yes | |
| requirements | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the return value (structured pricing + continueQuoteUrl) and that no email is sent. However, it does not mention side effects like creating a record, idempotency, or error handling. More detail on consequences would improve transparency for a mutation tool.
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 no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds critical output and behavioral details. 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?
Given no output schema and simple input schema, the description covers key aspects: input requirement (complete draft), required confirm, output type (pricing + URL), and a behavioral note (no email). Minor gaps include error conditions and the meaning of 'structured pricing', but overall sufficient for agent decision-making.
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 adequate descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, simply reiterating 'complete MCP draft'. No parameter-specific formatting or constraints are added.
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 'Generate a ShipMyCar quote from a complete MCP draft', specifying the verb (generate), resource (quote), and the prerequisite (complete draft). It distinguishes itself from siblings quote_get_requirements and quote_update_draft by implying this is the final step after building a draft.
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 when to use: when a complete draft is available. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'complete MCP draft' implies that incomplete drafts should use update_draft first. The note 'does not send email' clarifies a non-behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
quote_get_requirementsGet quote requirementsARead-onlyInspect
Use this when a ShipMyCar quote draft needs checking before generation. It only inspects the draft and returns route requirements, enabled services, missing fields, and next questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft | Yes | Current MCP quote draft to inspect. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| draft | Yes | |
| success | Yes | |
| warnings | Yes | |
| routeType | Yes | |
| capability | Yes | |
| missingFields | Yes | |
| nextQuestions | Yes | |
| readyForQuote | Yes | |
| enabledRouteTypes | Yes | |
| enabledServiceModules | Yes | |
| requiredServiceModules | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description only states what is returned but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state), authorization requirements, or error conditions. The term 'inspect' suggests read-only, but this is not confirmed.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words. Every phrase adds value.
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?
Without an output schema, the description adequately lists the return values (requirements, services, missing fields, next questions). Low complexity with one parameter. Only minor gap: no mention of error handling or empty draft behavior.
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% – the parameter 'draft' is described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, 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 explicitly states the verb 'inspect', the resource 'quote draft', and the outputs: requirements, services, missing fields, next questions. It clearly distinguishes from siblings 'quote_generate' and 'quote_update_draft' by focusing on inspection rather than generation or modification.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The context implies it's for inspecting a draft, but there is no when-not-to-use or alternative description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
quote_update_draftUpdate quote draftARead-onlyInspect
Use this when a user provides or corrects ShipMyCar quote details. It returns a stateless draft plus next questions and does not create records, send email, or contact ShipMyCar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| draft | No | Current MCP quote draft returned by a previous tool call. | |
| patch | Yes | New quote details collected from the user. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| draft | Yes | |
| success | Yes | |
| warnings | Yes | |
| routeType | Yes | |
| capability | Yes | |
| missingFields | Yes | |
| nextQuestions | Yes | |
| readyForQuote | Yes | |
| requiredServiceModules | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States the tool is stateless and merges details, but does not disclose potential side effects or error conditions.
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?
Single sentence, 20 words, front-loaded with action. No wasted 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?
Given two parameters and no output schema, description adequately explains inputs and output behavior. Could be enhanced by specifying format of 'next required 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 covers 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds meaningful context by explaining the merge action and that output is next required information.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Merge' and resource 'quote draft', clearly distinguishing from siblings like quote_generate (finalization) and quote_get_requirements (initial requirements).
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?
Implies usage when new quote details are available to merge into a draft, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.
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!