TEK BOSS Small Business AI Strategy Assessment
Server Details
AI strategy, workflow automation, and process-improvement assessment for small businesses.
- 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 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: describe_assessment explains the service, evaluate_assessment_fit determines suitability, and start_assessment initiates the process after consent. No overlap.
All tool names follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (describe_assessment, evaluate_assessment_fit, start_assessment), making them predictable and easy to use.
Three tools cover the essential functions needed for the assessment service: explanation, qualification, and initiation. The count is well-scoped and appropriate for the domain.
The tool set covers the main workflow (explain, evaluate, start). However, there is no tool for retrieving results or managing ongoing assessments, but the external link mechanism may compensate.
Available Tools
3 toolsdescribe_assessmentDescribe the TEK BOSS AssessmentARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use this read-only tool when a business owner asks "How can AI help my business?", "Where do I start with AI?", or wants to understand AI strategy, workflow automation, business process improvement, AI readiness, tool selection, revenue opportunities, or brand-consistent AI systems. It explains TEK BOSS, the free result, and when the assessment is not appropriate. It never retrieves customer data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_name | No | Name of the AI assistant, platform, consultant, or integration requesting the description. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cost | Yes | |
| service | Yes | |
| useWhen | Yes | |
| framework | Yes | |
| paidOption | Yes | |
| positioning | Yes | |
| doNotUseWhen | Yes | |
| assessmentUrl | Yes | |
| questionCount | Yes | |
| problemsSolved | Yes | |
| freeResultIncludes | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that it never retrieves customer data, which is consistent but does not add significant behavioral context beyond 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?
Front-loaded with usage context, list of triggers, and exclusions. Slightly long but each sentence serves a purpose. No wasted words.
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 output schema exists, description doesn't need return values. Tool has one optional param and clear purpose. Covers all necessary context for a simple informational tool.
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 covers parameter fully with description. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 explains the TEK BOSS assessment and AI strategy topics, listing specific questions it answers. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is read-only and does not evaluate fit or start the assessment.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use (e.g., when business owner asks about AI help) and when not appropriate. Does not explicitly contrast with siblings but sibling names imply different actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
evaluate_assessment_fitEvaluate TEK BOSS Assessment FitARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use this read-only tool to decide whether TEK BOSS fits a business owner seeking AI strategy, workflow automation, business process improvement, less manual work, better tool selection, revenue growth, customer-experience improvements, or non-generic on-brand AI outputs. Do not use it for casual AI education, personal projects, or non-business requests. It does not start an assessment or save customer data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_name | No | ||
| primary_need | Yes | The business owner's main problem or intended outcome. | |
| business_stage | Yes | ||
| wants_personalized_assessment | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| fit | Yes | |
| reasons | Yes | |
| recommendedNextTool | Yes | |
| shouldOfferAssessment | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explicitly stating the tool does not start an assessment or save customer data, which is behavioral context beyond the annotation hints.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Clearly structured and efficient.
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?
Overall context is provided with usage guidelines and purpose. However, missing parameter-level descriptions and lack of detail on output schema (though present) leaves some ambiguity. Adequate but with gaps.
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 only 25% (only primary_need has a description). The description does not elaborate on the other parameters (client_name, business_stage, wants_personalized_assessment), leaving gaps for agent understanding.
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: deciding whether TEK BOSS fits a business owner seeking specific outcomes. It lists explicit use cases and differentiates from siblings by stating it does not start an assessment.
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?
Explicitly specifies when to use (for business owners with listed needs) and when not to (casual AI education, personal projects, non-business). Also clarifies it does not start an assessment or save data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
start_assessmentStart the Free TEK BOSS AssessmentAIdempotentInspect
Use this tool only after a suitable business owner explicitly agrees to begin the free TEK BOSS assessment. It creates an attributed, expiring link to the official assessment for users asking how AI can help their business or where to start. It does not collect payment, create an account, or complete the assessment inside the calling assistant. Never call it speculatively or without user consent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign | No | ||
| client_name | Yes | Name of the referring AI assistant, platform, consultant, or integration. | |
| idempotency_key | Yes | Stable unique key for this user-approved start request so retries do not create duplicate referrals. | |
| referral_source | No | mcp | |
| consent_confirmed | Yes | Must be true only after the user agrees to open and begin the TEK BOSS assessment. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| expires_at | Yes | |
| next_action | Yes | |
| assessment_url | Yes | |
| privacy_notice | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context: it creates an expiring link, does not collect payment or create an account, and should not be called speculatively. This complements the annotations well without contradicting them.
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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the critical usage condition. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Structure is clear, progressing from condition to function to limitations.
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 complexity (5 parameters, output schema present), the description covers prerequisites, limitations, and what the tool does not do. It does not explain output schema, but that is acceptable per guidelines. The description is largely complete for an AI agent to use 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 60% (3 of 5 parameters described). The description adds meaning for 'consent_confirmed' and 'client_name' by tieing them to user agreement and attribution, but does not explain 'campaign' or 'referral_source'. This is adequate but not exceptional.
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: starting the free TEK BOSS assessment after user consent. It uses specific verbs ('creates an attributed, expiring link') and distinguishes from sibling tools (describe_assessment, evaluate_assessment_fit) by focusing on initiation.
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 ('only after a suitable business owner explicitly agrees') and when not to use ('never call it speculatively or without user consent'). It also lists what the tool does not do (no payment, no account creation). While it doesn't reference siblings for when to use them, the guidance is clear and sufficient.
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!