Skip to main content
Glama

agent-gateway

by works.relux

Get services and pricing

get_services_pricing
Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marketNoPreferred market or ISO country code, for example us, gb, de, ae, sa, sg, il, ca, or au.
preferred_languageNoPreferred 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / preferred_language / description
      Previous 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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / market
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Preferred market or ISO country code, for example us, gb, de, ae, sa, sg, il, ca, or au.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / preferred_language
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Preferred BCP 47 language, for example de, fr, ar, ar-AE, fa, or he.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

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.

All agent-gateway toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources