Send a shoot's worth of scripts to the Daily Studio teleprompter on iPhone, in one link.
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 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve entirely distinct purposes: one lists connected accounts, the other sends scripts to the teleprompter. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their intended use.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern in snake_case: 'list_connected_accounts' and 'send_script_to_teleprompter'. The naming is consistent and clearly indicates the action and target.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal. While the narrow scope is understandable, it sits at the borderline where 1-2 tools are considered thin, so a mid-range score is appropriate.
The two tools cover the core workflow of checking target platforms and sending scripts to the teleprompter. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to retrieve or manage the sent queue, but these are not essential to the stated purpose.
list_connected_accountsList connected social accountsAList the social accounts the user has connected to Daily Studio, so you know where a video could be published and under which handle. Requires a connected Daily Studio account — the first time you call this, the user is asked to connect one, and the call is retried automatically afterwards. Nothing is published by this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: the first call triggers a user connection prompt and the call is retried automatically. It also reinforces that nothing is published, complementing the read-only 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 three concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose: listing the accounts, explaining the use case, and clarifying the connection requirement and non-destructive nature. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
This is a simple list tool with an empty input schema and no output schema. The description covers the tool's purpose, use case, side effect (first-time auth), and safety, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no parameter-specific information, which is sufficient.
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 lists connected social accounts for a specific purpose ('so you know where a video could be published and under which handle'). It uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'social accounts', and differentiates itself from the sibling send_script_to_teleprompter by emphasizing it publishes nothing.
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 context for when to use this tool: before publishing a video to know target platforms and handles. It also notes the first-time connection requirement and auto-retry, but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, though the sibling tool is unrelated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
send_script_to_teleprompterSend script to teleprompterAInspectTurn one or more finished video scripts into a single one-tap link that opens the user's Daily Studio app with the script(s) loaded into the teleprompter and the right platform safe-zones selected, ready to record. For one script use text; for a batch the user will record back-to-back (a day's 3-4 videos, or a whole content plan — up to 100), use scripts — they land as an in-app shoot queue in order, and ONE link carries them all. Call this only once the scripts are final. Returns a link the user taps on their iPhone; on a desktop it opens a page with a QR code to scan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wpm | No | Optional scroll speed in words per minute. Sets the app's teleprompter speed. Omit to leave the user's setting alone. With `scripts`, applies to items that don't set their own. | |
| text | No | A single finished teleprompter script, plain UTF-8. Newlines allowed. Provide either this or `scripts`, not both. | |
| title | No | Optional short label for `text`, e.g. 'Cold plunge hook'. | |
| scripts | No | A batch of scripts (in recording order) delivered as a single link — up to 100 of them, 400000 characters of script in total. The app queues them; after each recording it offers the next. Provide either this or `text`, not both. | |
| platform | No | Where the video will be published. Selects that platform's safe-zone overlay so on-screen UI never covers the creator. Omit to leave the user's choice alone. With `scripts`, applies to items that don't set their own. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With all annotations being false, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: it generates a link, batch scripts form an in-app shoot queue in order, desktop displays a QR code, and iPhone opens a one-tap link. It does not mention link expiration or authentication requirements, but the core behavior is well covered.
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 and well-structured, with each sentence adding essential information: the core purpose, the text vs. scripts modes, the batch queue ordering, the finalization prerequisite, and the return format. No sentences are wasted, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.
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 no output schema and no annotation hints, the description competently explains the return value (link/QR code) and covers both single and batch scenarios, including ordering, platform safe-zones, and device behavior. It also implies that at least one of `text` or `scripts` must be provided, satisfying the core usage context.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between `text` and `scripts`, the 100-item/400k-character limits, and that `wpm`/`platform` defaults apply to items that don't set their own. This goes beyond the schema's individual property 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 specifies the tool's function: 'Turn one or more finished video scripts into a single one-tap link that opens the user's Daily Studio app with the script(s) loaded into the teleprompter and the right platform safe-zones selected.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from the sibling tool 'list_connected_accounts' which handles account listing.
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 explicit guidance: 'For one script use `text`; for a batch ... use `scripts`' and explains the batch use case ('a day's 3-4 videos, or a whole content plan — up to 100'). It also states a clear prerequisite: 'Call this only once the scripts are final.' This gives the agent clear when-to-use and how-to-choose information.
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!