Official Swiss living-cost & relocation data for all 26 cantons — taxes, rent, premiums, jobs.
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 4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: consultation, tax calculation, canton comparison, relocation cost estimate, single-canton data, historical trends, metric listing, ranking, commune search, and upcoming votes. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_metrics, search_commune, estimate_net_move). No mixing of conventions or erratic naming.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain (Swiss living index). Each tool provides necessary functionality without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The tool set covers core CRUD-like operations: search, retrieve, compare, rank, trend, and estimate. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for detailed commune-level rent or job data), but the overall coverage is strong for the stated purpose.
book_consultationAInspectRequest a personal consultation with Mirabello Consultancy (Swiss relocation & investment-migration specialists) for questions beyond the data — international moves, residency, lump-sum taxation, wealth planning. Requires explicit consent to share contact details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| phone | No | ||
| topic | No | ||
| consent | Yes | must be true: the person explicitly consents to their contact details being shared with Mirabello Consultancy | |
| message | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that explicit consent is required and that contact details will be shared with Mirabello Consultancy, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, response time) or any other side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden.
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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing prerequisites) to improve scanability.
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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the tool's purpose and consent condition but leaves out details about what happens after booking (e.g., confirmation behavior, expected response). It is adequate for a simple booking but could be more 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?
Schema coverage is low (17%) with only 'consent' having a description. The description adds little semantic detail for parameters like 'phone' or 'message'; it only mentions 'topic' implicitly by listing example topics. The description does clarify the consent requirement but does not compensate for the lack of 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 action (request a personal consultation), the provider (Mirabello Consultancy), and the specific domain (Swiss relocation & investment-migration). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it handles queries 'beyond the data'.
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 indicates this tool is for questions beyond what the data tools provide, listing example topics. While it doesn't say when not to use it or name alternatives directly, the context implies it's a human consultation tool, distinct from the data-focused siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
commune_taxAInspectLive income+wealth tax for a specific commune & household (official ESTV, year 2026). commune = name or postcode; income in CHF; married bool; children count; wealth in CHF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| income | Yes | ||
| wealth | No | ||
| commune | Yes | ||
| married | No | ||
| children | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description partially compensates by stating the tool is 'Live' (real-time) and uses official data (ESTV). However, it does not disclose potential error handling, response format, or whether the tool has any side-effects. More details on behavior would be beneficial.
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. The first sentence states the purpose concisely, and the second enumerates parameters with their formats. There is no unnecessary text, making it efficient and front-loaded.
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 description covers the input parameters well but does not describe the output (e.g., returns a tax amount in CHF). Given the absence of an output schema, this omission reduces completeness. It also lacks info on error states or required data validation. Overall, it is adequate for simple use but could be more comprehensive.
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 add meaning. It explains that 'commune' can be name or postcode, specifies units for income and wealth (CHF), and clarifies that 'married' is a boolean and 'children' a number. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema, though it could elaborate on optionality and expected ranges.
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 it calculates a live income and wealth tax for a specific commune and household, specifying the source (official ESTV) and year (2026). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_cantons or get_canton, which focus on broader comparisons or canton-level data.
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 usage when needing a tax estimate for a specific commune and household, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compare_cantonsBInspectCompare 2–4 cantons across all metrics. cantons = array of abbreviations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cantons | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. Only basic functionality is stated.
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, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place.
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 moderate complexity (no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks details on what 'all metrics' means, output format, or error handling for invalid canton counts.
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 0%, but the description adds 'cantons = array of abbreviations' and '2-4 cantons', providing some meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't clarify what abbreviations are expected.
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 'compare' and the resource '2–4 cantons across all metrics', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_canton' (single canton) and 'rank_by_metric' (ranking).
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 vs alternatives. The description only mentions the parameter format, not when to prefer it over similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
estimate_net_moveAInspectEstimate the net yearly CHF impact of moving between two Swiss communes for a household: live commune-level tax (official ESTV 2026) plus canton-average rent and health-premium differences. Positive savings = the move saves money. The flagship relocation calculation as a tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| income | Yes | gross household income, CHF/year | |
| wealth | No | taxable wealth, CHF | |
| married | No | ||
| children | No | ||
| to_commune | Yes | candidate commune name or postcode | |
| from_commune | Yes | current commune name or postcode |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It accurately describes the tool as an estimation calculation with no mention of destructive actions, which is reasonable. However, it lacks details on data freshness, accuracy limitations, or side effects, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
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?
Three concise sentences: first defines purpose and components, second clarifies savings sign, third highlights importance. No redundant or irrelevant information.
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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: inputs (communes, income, wealth, family), calculations (tax, rent, health), and output interpretation. However, it could mention that wealth and children are optional, and specify the return format beyond a monetary value.
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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds overall context (household-level, components) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for the missing descriptions for 'married' and 'children'.
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 tool estimates net yearly CHF impact of moving between two Swiss communes, specifying components (tax, rent, health premiums). The phrase 'flagship relocation calculation' distinguishes it from siblings like commune_tax (single commune) and compare_cantons (canton-level).
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 the tool (relocation between communes, financial impact evaluation). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives, though the context implies it's the primary relocation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_cantonAInspectGet all metric values for one canton. canton = 2-letter abbreviation (e.g. ZH, GE, TI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| canton | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It states the tool retrieves data (implying a read operation) but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, mention authorization, or describe behavior beyond the basic action.
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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the core action and parameter detail. Every word adds value, with no 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?
For a tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains input and output. However, it could clarify what 'all metric values' encompasses (e.g., range, source) for full completeness.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'canton' parameter format (2-letter abbreviation) and providing examples (ZH, GE, TI), adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 retrieves 'all metric values for one canton,' specifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare_cantons' or 'get_trend'.
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 usage when needing all metrics for a single canton, but it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools. More guidance would help an agent choose between this and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_trendAInspectHistorical year-series for a metric in one canton (e.g. sunshine back to 1884, migration to 1981, rent to 2010). metric = key from list_metrics with history: rent_mean, net_migration_per_1000, foreigner_pct, sunshine_hours, balance_per_capita, beds_per_1000, jobs. Optional from_year.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| canton | Yes | ||
| metric | Yes | ||
| from_year | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'historical year-series' and optional from_year but lacks details on data limits, caching, or performance characteristics.
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 with parenthetical examples, front-loading the main purpose. The list of metrics is slightly verbose but 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?
While most key aspects are covered (metric values, optional from_year), the description does not explain the canton parameter format or the return structure (e.g., array of year-value pairs), which would improve completeness.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by listing valid metric keys, explaining from_year is optional, and noting that metric must come from list_metrics with history.
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 it returns 'historical year-series for a metric in one canton' with specific examples of metrics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_cantons or list_metrics.
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 usage for single-canton historical data but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives like compare_cantons or rank_by_metric.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_metricsAInspectList available metrics for the 26 Swiss cantons (key, label, unit, source, what higher/lower means).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the output includes key, label, unit, source, and interpretation of higher/lower values, which effectively communicates the tool's behavior beyond a simple list.
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?
A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output content with no extraneous words. Every part is meaningful.
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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully explains the return fields and covers the intended functionality. No gaps remain.
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, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by detailing what the output contains, justifying a baseline of 4.
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 ('List') and resource ('available metrics') and details the information provided (key, label, unit, source, meaning). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'book_consultation' or 'get_canton'.
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. As a simple listing with no parameters, usage is implied as a preliminary step, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rank_by_metricAInspectRank all cantons by a metric. metric = a key from list_metrics; order = "high" or "low" (default high).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | No | ||
| metric | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explains that the tool ranks all cantons, takes a metric from list_metrics, and an optional order. However, it does not describe the return format, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, stating the purpose and clarifying parameter usage without 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how parameters are used, and the source of valid metric values. It could be slightly improved by noting the output format, but overall it is sufficiently 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond types. It explains that 'metric' is a key from list_metrics and that 'order' can be 'high' or 'low' with default 'high'. This provides essential semantics that the schema alone lacks.
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 action ('Rank all cantons by a metric') and specifies the resource ('cantons'). It also explains the source for the metric parameter and the valid values for order, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 when to use the tool (to rank cantons based on a metric) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., compare_cantons or get_canton). The sibling context provides some implicit differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_communeAInspectFind Swiss communes by name or postcode (official ESTV location register). Returns commune name, canton and postcode — use before commune_tax or estimate_net_move when the spelling is uncertain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the official register and the returned fields, giving insight into the tool's behaviour. However, it does not disclose details like case sensitivity, partial matching, or whether both name and postcode can be combined, but for a simple lookup it is adequate given no 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?
Two efficient sentences with no redundancy; the purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete: it defines input, output, and usage context relative to siblings.
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 has one parameter 'query' with no description, but the tool description adds meaning by stating that the query can be a name or postcode, thereby explaining its usage beyond the bare schema.
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 action ('Find Swiss communes'), the inputs (name or postcode), the data source (official ESTV location register), and the returned fields (name, canton, postcode). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying when to use 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?
Explicitly says to use this tool before 'commune_tax' or 'estimate_net_move' when spelling is uncertain, providing clear guidance on when it is appropriate and what alternatives are related.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
upcoming_votesAInspectThe next Swiss federal vote dates and (once announced) the subjects on the ballot, in DE/FR/IT/EN (official Federal Chancellery / VoteInfo data).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description transparently discloses the data source (official Federal Chancellery/VoteInfo), languages (DE/FR/IT/EN), and that subjects are provided 'once announced'. It does not detail update frequency or caching, but for a read-only info tool, this is sufficient.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key purpose and covers all essential details without 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, content, source, and languages. It does not specify behavior when no votes are upcoming, but this is minor given the clear domain.
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?
No parameters exist, so the description correctly explains what the tool returns (dates and ballot subjects). The schema coverage is 100% implicitly, and the description adds context about data source and languages beyond the empty schema.
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 provides 'next Swiss federal vote dates' and 'subjects on the ballot' in multiple languages, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'commune_tax' or 'get_canton' which focus on other domains.
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 usage for retrieving upcoming federal vote information, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives. However, the context is clear and no exclusion is necessary given the tool's unique purpose.
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!