A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceProvides positioning frameworks, bio audits, content pillars, and platform strategies to help creators build an audience that buys, not just watches.
7
62
MIT
agent-gateway
by works.relux
Server Details
Relux Works studio gateway: read services/pricing and submit a project inquiry to hire the team.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
2 toolsget_services_pricingGet services and pricingARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Returns Relux Works services, fixed-price packages, company facts, selected work, supported languages, and market-specific planning prices. Tool and service identifiers remain in English.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | Preferred market or ISO country code, for example us, gb, de, ae, sa, sg, il, ca, or au. | |
| preferred_language | No | Preferred BCP 47 language for regional filtering and the agent presentation, for example de, fr, ar, ar-AE, fa, or he. Canonical catalog prose remains in English. |
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond this by disclosing that tool and service identifiers remain in English, adding useful behavioral context about language handling. It also notes market-specific pricing, which is not evident from annotations alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first enumerates what is returned, the second clarifies a language nuance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It lists the major categories of returned data, which gives a good overall picture. However, it doesn't specify the structure (e.g., whether items are grouped) or clarify ambiguous terms like 'selected work,' leaving some gaps for a tool without an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'market' and 'preferred_language' are already well-documented with examples and purpose. The description adds minimal extra meaning about parameters, only hinting that prices are market-specific, which is sufficient given the strong schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Returns' and names the resource: Relux Works services, fixed-price packages, company facts, selected work, supported languages, and market-specific planning prices. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'request_project_quote' by focusing on information retrieval rather than quote submission, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for fetching service and pricing information, and the sibling name 'request_project_quote' hints at an alternative for quote requests. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor are alternatives mentioned in the text itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_project_quoteRequest a project quoteADestructiveInspect
Creates and immediately sends an external project inquiry to a private Relux Works Telegram chat for human review. Do not call it to test the connector or demonstrate MCP. Build the summary from known conversation context, ask only for missing details, obtain a real user-provided or user-confirmed reply route to the decision maker or an accountable relay agent, and show the complete draft including that route. Before calling, provide https://relux.works/en/privacy-policy/ and obtain explicit user consent. Never invent or infer contact details. The current MCP chat is not a reply route. A human replies within one business day with a recommended package and a fixed-price quote.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| market | No | Client market or country code | |
| summary | Yes | What the user wants to build or fix, current state, goals (required) | |
| timeline | No | Desired timeline or deadline | |
| budget_usd | No | Approximate budget in USD, if known | |
| client_name | No | Name of the person or company | |
| project_type | No | Closest project category | |
| contact_email | No | Real, reachable decision-maker email provided or explicitly confirmed by the user. Never invent or infer it. Legacy shorthand for reply_contact with channel=email and recipient=decision_maker. Reserved example and test domains are rejected. | |
| reply_contact | No | External route provided or explicitly confirmed by the user that a Relux Works human can use to reach the decision maker or a relay agent. Never invent or infer it. The current MCP session, chat, or inquiry ID does not qualify. | |
| consent_confirmed | Yes | Set to true only after the user has reviewed the complete inquiry and reply route, received the privacy notice URL, and explicitly approved submission to Relux Works. | |
| preferred_language | No | Language preferred for the human reply |
TDQS
A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it sends data externally, requires explicit user consent and privacy policy review, forbids inventing contact details, notes the current MCP chat is not a reply route, and states a human replies within one business day. This is far richer than the annotations alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense paragraph where every sentence delivers essential information—purpose, misuse warning, process steps, privacy/consent, and expectations. No fluff or redundancy; it is appropriately sized for a high-stakes external action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 10 parameters, nested reply_contact object, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, misuse, step-by-step submission requirements, consent, privacy policy, and the expected human follow-up. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 crucial guidance for key parameters: summary must be built from known conversation context, consent_confirmed requires explicit approval after privacy notice, and contact fields must be user-provided or confirmed, never invented. It doesn't elaborate on optional fields, but they are covered by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action: 'Creates and immediately sends an external project inquiry to a private Relux Works Telegram chat for human review.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_services_pricing, which is about retrieving pricing information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly warns against misuse: 'Do not call it to test the connector or demonstrate MCP.' It also provides clear preconditions: build summary from conversation context, ask only for missing details, obtain a user-confirmed reply route, show the draft, and get explicit consent after sharing the privacy policy.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- Changed
request_project_quote5 fields changed- added
Input schema / anyOfAdded value: +[ + { + "required": [ + "contact_email" + ] + }, + { + "required": [ + "reply_contact" + ] + } +] - added
Input schema / properties / consent_confirmedAdded value: +{ + "const": true, + "description": "Set to true only after the user has reviewed the complete inquiry and reply route, received the privacy notice URL, and explicitly approved submission to Relux Works.", + "type": "boolean" +} - changed
Input schema / properties / contact_email / descriptionPrevious value: -"Email address a human will reply to (required)"New value: +"Real, reachable decision-maker email provided or explicitly confirmed by the user. Never invent or infer it. Legacy shorthand for reply_contact with channel=email and recipient=decision_maker. Reserved example and test domains are rejected." - added
Input schema / properties / reply_contactAdded value: +{ + "additionalProperties": false, + "description": "External route provided or explicitly confirmed by the user that a Relux Works human can use to reach the decision maker or a relay agent. Never invent or infer it. The current MCP session, chat, or inquiry ID does not qualify.", + "properties": { + "channel": { + "enum": [ + "email", + "telegram", + "signal", + "whatsapp", + "phone", + "linkedin" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "recipient": { + "description": "Who monitors this contact and is responsible for receiving the response.", + "enum": [ + "decision_maker", + "relay_agent" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "value": { + "description": "Real address, handle, phone number, or profile URL for the selected channel.", + "maxLength": 500, + "minLength": 5, + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "channel", + "value", + "recipient" + ], + "type": "object" +} - changed
Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[ - "contact_email", - "summary" -]New value: +[ + "summary", + "consent_confirmed" +]
1 tool update
- Changed
get_services_pricing1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / preferred_language / descriptionPrevious value: -"Preferred BCP 47 language, for example de, fr, ar, ar-AE, fa, or he."New value: +"Preferred BCP 47 language for regional filtering and the agent presentation, for example de, fr, ar, ar-AE, fa, or he. Canonical catalog prose remains in English."
2 tool updates
- Changed
get_services_pricing2 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / marketAdded value: +{ + "description": "Preferred market or ISO country code, for example us, gb, de, ae, sa, sg, il, ca, or au.", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / preferred_languageAdded value: +{ + "description": "Preferred BCP 47 language, for example de, fr, ar, ar-AE, fa, or he.", + "type": "string" +}
- Changed
request_project_quote2 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / marketAdded value: +{ + "description": "Client market or country code", + "maxLength": 64, + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / preferred_languageAdded value: +{ + "description": "Language preferred for the human reply", + "maxLength": 35, + "type": "string" +}
2 tool updates
- First observed
get_services_pricing - First observed
request_project_quote
Frequently Asked Questions
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, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon 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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Explore Raze services, pricing, projects, availability, and confirmed introduction bookings.
An interactive portfolio built for AI conversations. Browse work, services, and book calls.
Labangram portfolio, services, pricing, and inquiry MCP endpoints.
Authored design service: one-of-one landing pages, pitch decks, and research-grounded briefs.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceArt-directed website prompts delivered as slash commands in Claude Code, Claude Desktop and Cursor: hero sections, landing pages, SaaS, portfolio, e-commerce and 3D/WebGL scenes. Each build is registered as a real MCP prompt and written natively for the tool you are in (Lovable, Bolt, Cursor or Claude), with a live demo you can scroll before spending a token.484MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceSearch PR agencies, browse publications, buy press release distribution & media placements. Zero-config, no API key needed.17MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceGives MCP clients access to a registry of elite UI patterns, components, and motion configs with real, copy-pasteable React/TSX implementations.122MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one retrieves pricing/service information, the other submits a quote request. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern with underscores (get_services_pricing, request_project_quote), maintaining consistent and predictable naming.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin, but the narrow scope (pricing info and quote requests for Relux Works) makes the count borderline acceptable rather than excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the core workflow of retrieving pricing and requesting a quote, but lack features like quote status tracking or management, which is a minor gap agents can work around.