One read-only public-page readiness check with a signed, recheckable evidence receipt.
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.
Average 4.1/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only a single tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.
The single tool name 'advisors_store_readiness_check' aligns with the server name and is descriptive and unambiguous. With only one tool, consistency is naturally perfect.
Having just one tool feels thin for a general-purpose server, but given the narrow scope of 'store readiness check', it may be appropriate. However, it falls into the borderline category for tool count.
The tool appears to fully cover its singular purpose—performing a read-only readiness check with a signed receipt and acceptance condition. For the defined domain, there are no obvious missing operations.
advisors_store_readiness_checkCheck one public store page for one actionable readiness findingAUse only after the requester supplies a public page and asks for a read-only check. Returns at most one measured finding with a signed source receipt and the fixed acceptance condition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | A credential-free public HTTP(S) page. Private networks and non-standard web ports are rejected. | |
| language | No | Response language: ar or en. | ar |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| errors | No | |
| schema | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| target | No | |
| finding | No | |
| surface | Yes | |
| evidence | No | |
| language | Yes | |
| acceptance | No | |
| imperative | No | |
| measurement | No | |
| recheck_url | No | |
| not_measured | No | |
| proof_status | Yes | |
| score_percent | No | |
| source_receipt | No | |
| consent_receipt | No | |
| coverage_percent | No | |
| measurement_status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds non-redundant context: it returns 'at most one measured finding with a signed source receipt and the fixed acceptance condition.' This goes beyond the annotations by specifying output behavior and measurement detail, giving the agent a better sense of what to expect. It doesn't contradict any annotation.
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 with no filler. The usage condition is front-loaded, immediately telling the agent when to call it. The second sentence summarizes output characteristics. It's efficient and well-structured, though the purpose could be stated before the usage condition for better clarity, but it's still concise.
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 presence of an output schema covers return-value details, so the description doesn't need to explain them. It does cover the key contextual points: the precondition for use, the read-only nature, and the output shape. It doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a 'readiness finding' but that's likely captured in the output schema or examples. For a single-purpose tool with no siblings, this is reasonably 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?
The input schema describes both parameters (url and language) with 100% coverage, including descriptions, examples, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no further parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies. It doesn't introduce any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 title and description together state a specific verb (check), a specific resource (public store page), and a specific outcome (one actionable readiness finding). The description also clarifies it's a read-only check, so an agent can identify what this tool does without ambiguity. With no sibling tools, this level of specificity fully distinguishes it.
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 states when to use the tool: 'Use only after the requester supplies a public page and asks for a read-only check.' This gives a clear precondition and a usage constraint. It doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, but since there are no sibling tools, that omission is acceptable. The guidance is explicit enough.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
