connect
Server Details
Governed personal world model and memory for your AI agent. Pair once, connect over MCP.
- 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 2.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct function in the ODEI Connect ceremony: handshake for pairing, plan for install plan, report_step for recording progress, status for monitoring, and talk for querying state without model API. No overlap in purpose.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'odei_connect_<verb>', with verbs clearly describing the action (handshake, plan, report_step, status, talk). No naming style inconsistencies.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a ceremony workflow covering initialization, planning, reporting progress, checking status, and querying state. Neither too sparse nor excessive.
The tools cover the core lifecycle of a Connect session: establishing, planning, stepping, status, and non-model querying. A potential gap is the absence of cancellation or error-handling tools, but for typical use it is complete.
Available Tools
5 toolsodei_connect_handshakeBInspect
Verify an app.odei.ai pairing code and open an ODEI Connect session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | Optional local AI operator name. | |
| pairing_code | Yes | Fresh ODEI pairing code from app.odei.ai/profile. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'verify and open session' without disclosing outcomes, side effects, or error behavior.
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 12-word sentence with no fluff, achieving maximum conciseness.
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?
Despite low complexity, the description omits important details like return values, side effects, and prerequisites, making it incomplete for reliable 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 coverage is 100% and descriptions add 'Fresh' and source context, but the description adds only marginal value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 verifies a pairing code and opens a session, with a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan, report_step, status, and talk.
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 implies the tool is for initiating a connection but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
odei_connect_planCInspect
Return the ordered local ODEI install plan and reporting contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| os | No | ||
| session_token | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Return', implying a read-only operation, but omits details about authentication, potential errors, or what 'ordered local' means. Lacks transparency about side effects or data requirements.
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 short sentence, which is concise but excessively terse. It fails to include necessary context that could be added without much length, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain the return value structure. It mentions 'install plan and reporting contract' but not their format (e.g., JSON, text). No error conditions or edge cases are described. Incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The agent gets no explanation of 'os' (an enum) or 'session_token'. The description adds zero value beyond the schema's names and types.
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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and names resources 'ODEI install plan and reporting contract'. It is clear what the tool does, though 'reporting contract' is somewhat ambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the purpose is reasonably clear.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like odei_connect_handshake or odei_connect_status. No prerequisites or conditions for usage are mentioned. The agent has no context to decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
odei_connect_report_stepCInspect
Record evidence that a Connect ceremony step has completed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| os | No | ||
| step | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| session_token | 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. It discloses that the tool records evidence (mutation), but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens if step already recorded. Minimal behavioral context.
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, no redundant words. However, it is overly terse and could be restructured to include more detail without being verbose. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
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 the tool has 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, behavioral details, and output hints, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It does not explain any parameter's purpose, format, or constraints. The tool has 5 parameters including required fields, but none are described.
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 clearly states the verb 'Record evidence' and resource 'Connect ceremony step has completed'. It specifies the purpose of recording evidence after a step, distinguishing it implicitly from sibling tools which are other actions (handshake, plan, status, talk). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar tools.
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 alternatives. The description implies usage after completing a step, but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclude scenarios. No mention of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
odei_connect_statusCInspect
Return current ODEI Connect ceremony progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| os | No | ||
| session_token | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Return'), but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or any other behavioral traits. Adequate but minimal.
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 concise sentence, but it sacrifices critical information. It earns its place but leaves gaps, making it moderately 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?
For a tool with no output schema and two unannotated parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the nature of 'ceremony progress' or how parameters affect the result.
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 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. With 2 parameters (including an enum for OS), the description should clarify their roles; it does not.
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 'Return current ODEI Connect ceremony progress' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'handshake' and 'plan', though it could be more specific about what 'ceremony progress' entails.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'odei_connect_plan' or 'odei_connect_report_step'. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
odei_connect_talkCInspect
Answer from ODEI Connect session state without invoking a model API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| os | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| session_token | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'without invoking a model API' but does not explain the alternative mechanism, nor does it cover side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. Significant gaps remain.
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 sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical details about parameters and usage. It is not front-loaded with the most important information for an agent to use the tool.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the session state mechanism, necessary preconditions, or what the return value might be. Agents would struggle to use this tool correctly.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not describe 'session_token', 'os', or 'message' at all. The enum for 'os' is left unexplained. The description adds no value beyond the schema structure.
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 verb 'answer' and resource 'ODEI Connect session state', and distinguishes itself by noting it does not invoke a model API. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'odei_connect_handshake' or 'odei_connect_plan', though the verb is unique.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., a prior handshake), and no context on appropriate scenarios. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.
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!