53ON
Server Details
Directory and marketplace of local businesses and independent professionals. Find who does a job near a user, see ratings and prices, and get a direct link to request a quote and pay. Two tools: search_providers finds businesses by what they do (Spanish or English, resolves synonyms, optional lat and lng) and get_business returns one business detail: services, ratings, product catalog with prices, and the quote-and-pay link. Stateless streamable-http, no auth.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
2 toolsget_businessARead-onlyInspect
Full public detail of one 53ON business by its slug: services, ratings, product catalog with prices, and the link where the user can request a quote and pay. Use the slug returned by search_providers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language for service names. Default es. | |
| slug | Yes | Public slug of the business, for example creacionlaura. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by clarifying the operation is 'public' (no auth required) and specifying the detailed response fields. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It states the purpose, lists key returned data, and provides a usage pointer without waste.
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 2-parameter tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main return contents and usage context. It could mention error cases or the absence of pagination, but the essentials are present.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the context that the slug comes from search_providers, which is minor. It does not explain lang beyond the schema's existing description.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('53ON business by its slug'), and clearly enumerates the returned content (services, ratings, product catalog, quote/pay link). It distinguishes itself from sibling search_providers by focusing on detail retrieval for a known slug.
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 instructs to use the slug returned by search_providers, creating a clear prerequisite and referencing the sibling search tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_providersARead-onlyInspect
Find local businesses and independent professionals on 53ON by what they do. Accepts free text in Spanish or English and resolves synonyms, so "plumber" and "destapar caneria" both work. Pass lat and lng to limit results to that area; without them the search is nationwide. Call with an empty query to get the list of services 53ON covers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | No | Latitude of the user. Optional. | |
| lng | No | Longitude of the user. Optional. | |
| lang | No | Language of the query. Default es. | |
| limit | No | Max results, 1 to 50. Default 10. | |
| query | No | What the user needs, in their own words. Empty returns the service list. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining how the search behaves: it resolves synonyms ('plumber' and 'destapar caneria' work), supports Spanish and English, and defaults to nationwide without coordinates. This adds valuable transparency about multilingual support and synonym handling that is not in the schema or annotations.
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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, usage nuances, and special behavior. No filler or redundancy. Each sentence adds essential information for correct tool usage.
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 search tool with no output schema and only two sibling tools, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, how to use it (free text, geographic limits), language support, and the empty-query service list. It doesn't mention pagination or result formatting, but that's not critical given the simplicity and the fact that it's a search endpoint.
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 input schema already has 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the 'query' parameter accepts free text and that an empty query returns a service list, and clarifies that lat/lng limit results to a geographic area. This additional context elevates the score.
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: to find local businesses and independent professionals by what they do. It specifies the input type (free text in Spanish or English) and the optional geographic filtering, distinguishing it from the sibling get_business which likely retrieves a specific business. The verb 'find' and resource 'local businesses' are explicit.
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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: for searching by service or profession, with optional lat/lng to narrow results. It also explains the empty-query behavior (to get list of services). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling, the usage context is sufficient for an agent to decide correctly.
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.
2 tool updates
- First observed
get_business - First observed
search_providers
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 Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables detection and analysis of pre-public product launches through web search, content extraction, AI-powered scoring, and automated alerting. Provides comprehensive tools for surfacing stealth startup signals before they trend publicly.MIT

industrylens-mcpofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceBrowse IndustryLens's published competitive-intelligence reports and head-to-head competitor comparisons from any AI agent — real, source-backed data.MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI chat clients to perform market research and competitive intelligence by gathering company overviews, competitor lists, product portfolios, pricing snapshots, and recent news via live Tavily search.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceDetects hiring intent signals by scanning job boards for specific companies. Returns structured role data for outbound sales targeting.11961MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
The two tools have clearly distinct roles: one searches for providers based on queries, the other fetches details for a specific business. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: 'get_business' and 'search_providers'. Consistent and predictable.
With only two tools, the server is on the thin side. While it covers the core search-and-retrieve workflow, the count feels minimal, though not unreasonable for a narrow domain.
The pair provides a complete read-only workflow: search for providers (including listing all services with an empty query) and fetch detailed business info. No obvious missing functionality for its stated purpose.