F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceEnables AI agents to browse product catalogs, search products with filters, and initiate checkouts, generating order summaries and checkout URLs.
-
elevai Commerce Demo
by ch.elevai
Server Details
Open demo shop: search products, place a 0.05 CHF order, create a PostFinance payment link.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
7 toolscreate_orderBestellung anlegenAInspect
Legt im elevai-Demoshop eine Bestellung an und gibt ein Handle zurueck, mit dem sich anschliessend ein Zahllink erzeugen laesst. Beim ersten Aufruf fragt das Werkzeug die Zustimmung zu den Geschaeftsbedingungen zurueck; danach erneut aufrufen mit accept_terms und terms_version. Demoshop mit Grenzen: Einzelpreis bis 0.05 CHF, Bestellsumme bis 0.25 CHF. Was sonst gilt, steht in den Geschaeftsbedingungen, die dieses Werkzeug zurueckgibt — nicht in deiner Antwort wiederholen.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Die E-Mail-Adresse der Person. Niemals erfinden, niemals einen Platzhalter wie "?" einsetzen — fehlt sie, zuerst danach fragen. Entfaellt, wenn ein bestaetigtes login_handle mitgegeben wird. | ||
| country | No | Zwei Buchstaben, ISO 3166-1, Vorgabe CH. | |
| quantity | No | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| product_id | Yes | Die id aus search_products. | |
| accept_terms | No | Nur true, wenn der Mensch den Geschaeftsbedingungen ausdruecklich zugestimmt hat. Nie selbst setzen. | |
| login_handle | No | Das Handle aus start_login, sofern die Person sich im Shop angemeldet hat. Dann wird die Adresse aus dem Konto genommen und nicht erfragt. | |
| terms_version | No | Die Fassung, der zugestimmt wurde. Kommt aus der Rueckfrage dieses Werkzeugs. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | |
| status | Yes | |
| is_demo | No | |
| currency | Yes | |
| order_handle | Yes | Schluessel fuer create_payment_link und get_order_status, zwei Stunden gueltig |
TDQS
A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals critical behavioral traits: the tool asks back for terms consent on first call, requires a follow-up call with specific parameters, returns a handle for later payment-link creation, and imposes demo price limits. It also tells the agent not to repeat the returned terms, which is a valuable operational instruction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the main action and return value, the second explains the terms flow, and the third sets limits and instructs not to duplicate the terms. Every sentence earns its place, with the most important information front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex 9-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers all essential interaction context: the two-step terms-acceptance flow, the handle's role for later payment-link creation, demo constraints, and where to find the full rules (the terms returned by the tool). Since an output schema exists, return value details need not be spelled out, making the description sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantic value beyond the schema by explaining when accept_terms and terms_version should be provided (only after the first call asks for consent) and what the returned handle is for. It does not describe quantity, last_name, or first_name, but these are self-explanatory and the schema already covers the other parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Legt ... eine Bestellung an' – creates an order) and identifies the resource (elevai-Demoshop) and the key outcome (returns a handle for generating a payment link). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_payment_link (later step) and get_order_status (status check), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly explains the two-step invocation flow: first call triggers terms consent, then call again with accept_terms and terms_version. It also states concrete boundaries (single price up to 0.05 CHF, order total up to 0.25 CHF), which implicitly tells the agent when the tool is not suitable. This goes beyond context to explicit usage constraints and sequencing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_payment_linkZahllink erzeugenAInspect
Erzeugt zu einer Bestellung eine PostFinance-Checkout-Zahlseite. Verlangt das Handle aus create_order. Der Betrag stammt aus der Bestellung, nicht vom Aufrufer.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | Zahlart: pfpay fuer PostFinance Pay, twint fuer TWINT. Ohne Angabe liefert das Werkzeug die Auswahl zurueck, statt eine Zahlseite zu erzeugen. | |
| order_handle | Yes | Das Handle aus create_order. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| currency | No | |
| payment_url | Yes | Vollstaendiger Link zur PostFinance-Zahlseite, unveraendert ausgeben |
| order_handle | No |
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Die Beschreibung geht über die reine Funktionsangabe hinaus und offenbart relevante Verhaltensdetails: Es wird ein Handle benötigt, der Betrag stammt aus der Bestellung und ohne method-Angabe wird keine Zahlseite erzeugt, sondern eine Auswahl geliefert. Damit wird das Verhalten besonders im Grenzfall transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Die Beschreibung ist mit zwei Sätzen kompakt und informationdicht. Die wesentliche Information (Erzeugt Zahlseite, benötigt Handle, Betrag aus Bestellung) steht vorne, und jede Aussage trägt zur korrekten Verwendung bei.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Für ein Werkzeug mit zwei Parametern, vollständigem Schema und Output-Schema ist die Beschreibung ausreichend vollständig. Es fehlen nur marginale Aspekte wie mögliche Fehlerfälle oder Authentifizierungsdetails, die aber nicht zwingend erforderlich sind.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Die Schema-Beschreibung deckt beide Parameter vollständig ab, insbesondere den method-Parameter mit Enum und Verhaltensbeschreibung. Die Tool-Beschreibung ergänzt den Kontext, dass das Handle aus create_order stammt und den Betrag eben nicht der Aufrufer bestimmt.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Beschreibt mit spezifischem Verb ('erzeugt') und Ressource ('PostFinance-Checkout-Zahlseite') klar die Funktion. Der Zusatz, dass der Betrag aus der Bestellung stammt und nicht vom Aufrufer, grenzt die Funktionalität von anderen Werkzeugen ab und macht den Zweck eindeutig.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Die Beschreibung nennt explizit die Abhängigkeit vom Handle aus create_order und das optionale Verhalten ohne method-Angabe. Damit ist klar, wann das Werkzeug genutzt werden soll und was bei bestimmten Eingaben passiert.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_login_statusAnmeldung nachfragenAInspect
Fragt nach, ob die Anmeldung bestaetigt wurde. Antwortet mit wartet, bestaetigt oder abgelaufen. Bei bestaetigt kommen Vorname und Kundennummer zurueck — nie ein Passwort und nie eine Sitzung. Nicht in Schleife aufrufen: einmal nachfragen, wenn die Person sagt, sie sei fertig.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| login_handle | Yes | Das Handle aus start_login. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| first_name | No | |
| customer_id | No |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses response statuses, that confirmed logins return first name and customer number, that passwords and sessions are never returned, and that polling repeatedly is inappropriate. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not discuss authentication or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: statuses, security guarantee, and usage caveat. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter status-check tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, possible responses, a security guarantee, and when to call it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter login_handle is already fully documented as 'Das Handle aus start_login'. The description adds no parameter detail, but the schema covers the necessary meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: it asks whether the login has been confirmed, and clearly enumerates the possible answers (waiting, confirmed, expired). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_login and get_order_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-call guidance: call once when the person says they are done, and do not call in a loop. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the context makes the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_order_statusBestellstatus abfragenAInspect
Zeigt den aktuellen Stand einer Bestellung. In dieser Demo ist "reserviert" (on-hold) der Endzustand: der Betrag wird nie eingezogen und die Reservation faellt nach drei Tagen weg. Verlangt das Handle aus create_order.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_handle | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | No | |
| status | Yes | |
| created | No | |
| is_paid | Yes | |
| currency | No | |
| order_handle | No |
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the demo treats 'reserviert' (on-hold) as the final state, that the amount is never collected, and that the reservation expires after three days. This is important behavioral context that an agent could not infer from the schema and that materially affects how the result should be interpreted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loads the main verb and resource, then adds only essential behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds value: status display, demo-specific terminal state, no-charge behavior, and prerequisite handle.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-style tool, the description covers the main purpose, the key behavioral caveat, and the source of the input handle. It does not explain the exact return fields, but an output schema exists, so that is not a significant gap. It could mention that the status may be transitional in other environments, but the demo limitation is already explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only contains 'order_handle' with no description and 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains what the parameter refers to (the handle produced by create_order), which gives the agent enough semantic grounding even though it does not specify the exact format. This is a meaningful addition beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function ('Zeigt den aktuellen Stand einer Bestellung') and identifies the exact resource (Bestellung). It also immediately distinguishes this from siblings by specifying that it requires the handle from create_order, which makes it easy for an agent to see how it fits into the ordering workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies the exact prerequisite context: it requires the handle from create_order. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but given the sibling list, it is clear that this is the order-status lookup and not payment-link or product retrieval. The privacy/demo behavior further clarifies when the tool reflects a final/terminal state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_productProdukt ansehenAInspect
Liefert die Einzelheiten zu einem Produkt: Beschreibung, Preis, Lagerstatus, Kategorien und Bild.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Die id aus search_products. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | product_id fuer create_order |
| url | No | |
| name | Yes | |
| image | No | |
| price | Yes | |
| currency | Yes | |
| in_stock | No |
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool returns product details, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error cases, or auth requirements; the verb 'Liefert' only weakly implies a non-mutating read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned fields compactly. There is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition is essentially complete: the description lists what is returned, and the schema explains how to obtain the product_id. The reference to search_products in the schema mitigates the only potential workflow gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains product_id as 'Die id aus search_products', which is meaningful context. The main description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Liefert') and resource ('Produkt') and enumerates the returned fields: Beschreibung, Preis, Lagerstatus, Kategorien, Bild. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_order or get_order_status, which target different resources and actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parameter description states that product_id is 'Die id aus search_products', which explicitly ties usage to a prior search_products call. The description itself does not name an alternative or exclusion, but the workflow context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_productsProdukte suchenAInspect
Durchsucht den Katalog des elevai-Demoshops nach einem Begriff und liefert Name, Preis, Waehrung und Produktseite. Ohne Begriff kommen die zuletzt aufgenommenen Produkte.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Suchbegriff, etwa "Kite" oder "Abo". |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | |
| products | Yes |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the search behavior and the fallback to latest products, but does not mention sort order, limit application, or any side effects. For a simple read-only search this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences are front-loaded with the main action and result fields, and the second sentence adds the useful no-query behavior without waste. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity search tool with an output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers the key behavior and the empty-query case. It could be more complete by explaining the limit parameter's effect and how it differs from get_product, but nothing critical for a basic call is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50%: query is described in the schema, and the description adds the important semantics that an empty query returns recent products. The limit parameter is not semantically explained in either place, though its numeric constraints and default are present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Durchsucht'), a resource ('Katalog des elevai-Demoshops'), and the delivered fields (Name, Preis, Waehrung, Produktseite), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_product, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to search by term and explains the no-query fallback ('Ohne Begriff kommen die zuletzt aufgenommenen Produkte'), giving some usage context. However, it does not name alternatives such as get_product or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
start_loginAnmeldung im Shop startenAInspect
Startet eine Anmeldung im Shop. Gibt eine Adresse und einen Pruefcode zurueck. Die Person oeffnet die Adresse selbst im Browser, meldet sich dort bei WordPress an und bestaetigt. Frag NIE nach einem Passwort und nimm keines entgegen — dieses Werkzeug hat kein Feld dafuer, und der Shop erwartet es nur auf seiner eigenen Seite. Gib die Adresse und den Pruefcode unveraendert aus und sage, dass der Code auf der Seite derselbe sein muss. Danach mit get_login_status nachfragen.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | |
| login_url | Yes | |
| expires_in | No | |
| login_handle | Yes |
TDQS
A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the out-of-band nature (the person opens the address themselves), the security-sensitive instruction to never accept passwords, and the requirement to pass through the address/code unchanged. It does not explicitly state side effects such as whether repeated calls invalidate prior codes, but it covers the most critical behaviors well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second states the output, the third gives the user workflow, and the last gives critical guardrails and next steps. Every sentence adds necessary operational information without fluff or repetition of the title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the purpose, the user-side flow, the security constraint, the exact output format expectations, and the follow-up tool to use. The sibling list and output schema would handle the remaining details, so nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has no parameter semantics to explain. The description nevertheless explains what the tool returns (address and verification code), giving the agent the semantic meaning of the operation even without input parameters to describe. This fully compensates for the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('startet eine Anmeldung'), names the resource ('Shop'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling login-status/order tools. It explains the output (address and verification code) and the WordPress login flow, making the tool's function unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance by noting that after starting login the agent must check via 'get_login_status', and it explicitly tells the agent what not to do ('Frag NIE nach einem Passwort'). It also tells the agent how to present the result, which guides usage beyond just selecting the tool.
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.
3 tool updates
- Changed
create_order2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / email / descriptionPrevious value: -"Die E-Mail-Adresse der Person. Niemals erfinden, niemals einen Platzhalter wie \"?\" einsetzen — fehlt sie, zuerst danach fragen."New value: +"Die E-Mail-Adresse der Person. Niemals erfinden, niemals einen Platzhalter wie \"?\" einsetzen — fehlt sie, zuerst danach fragen. Entfaellt, wenn ein bestaetigtes login_handle mitgegeben wird." - added
Input schema / properties / login_handleAdded value: +{ + "description": "Das Handle aus start_login, sofern die Person sich im Shop angemeldet hat. Dann wird die Adresse aus dem Konto genommen und nicht erfragt.", + "type": "string" +}
- Added
get_login_status - Added
start_login
1 tool update
- Changed
create_payment_link1 field changed- added
Input schema / properties / methodAdded value: +{ + "description": "Zahlart: pfpay fuer PostFinance Pay, twint fuer TWINT. Ohne Angabe liefert das Werkzeug die Auswahl zurueck, statt eine Zahlseite zu erzeugen.", + "enum": [ + "pfpay", + "twint" + ], + "type": "string" +}
1 tool update
- Changed
create_order1 field changed- added
Input schema / properties / email / descriptionAdded value: +"Die E-Mail-Adresse der Person. Niemals erfinden, niemals einen Platzhalter wie \"?\" einsetzen — fehlt sie, zuerst danach fragen."
1 tool update
- Changed
create_order2 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / accept_termsAdded value: +{ + "description": "Nur true, wenn der Mensch den Geschaeftsbedingungen ausdruecklich zugestimmt hat. Nie selbst setzen.", + "type": "boolean" +} - added
Input schema / properties / terms_versionAdded value: +{ + "description": "Die Fassung, der zugestimmt wurde. Kommt aus der Rueckfrage dieses Werkzeugs.", + "type": "string" +}
5 tool updates
- First observed
create_order - First observed
create_payment_link - First observed
get_order_status - First observed
get_product - First observed
search_products
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 Connectors
Search pwa.directory, submit a progressive web app, and get a payment link a human pays.
Reference agent-ready storefront: search, look up and price a real Magento catalog.
Agentic commerce gateway: discovery, search, checkout across Shopify/Woo/Odoo/PrestaShop.
Read payment settings, orders and receipts, create payment links and API keys.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to accept payments in Switzerland via Stripe hosted checkout, supporting TWINT, cards, and Apple Pay.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to search a merchant's product catalog and complete UPI checkouts via Razorpay test-mode APIs, with spend mandates and full audit logging.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to autonomously browse inventory, negotiate terms, manage carts, and execute secure payments on Shopify stores using standardized protocols. It provides a bridge for LLMs to handle the entire commerce lifecycle from discovery to order tracking through a verifiable mandate chain.52MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or stage: products are searched and read, orders are created and checked, payment links are created, and login has separate start and status tools. The two status tools are clearly separated by domain, so an agent is unlikely to confuse them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern such as create_order, get_order_status, search_products, and start_login. The action words are specific and the objects are clear, making the expected behavior predictable across the entire set.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well within the ideal range for a focused commerce demo. Each tool covers a necessary step in the demo workflow without redundant additions or unnecessary complexity.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full demo workflow: product discovery, order creation, payment-link generation, order status checks, and the external login flow. The demo's explicit constraints make the absence of admin operations such as update or delete acceptable, and there are no dead ends.