AI legal copilot for foreigners in Spain: immigration and housing rental, cited to Spanish law.
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 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides information about Lity, the other handles user registration for early access. No overlap exists.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_lity_info, submit_early_access_request), ensuring predictability.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose (info and registration). Slightly under the typical range but appropriate for a simple early access service.
The tool surface covers the entire domain: learning about the service and submitting a request. No necessary operations are missing for early access.
get_lity_infoAbout LityAWhat Lity is, coverage (Spain: immigration/extranjería, housing rental), languages, access status and links. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it read-only; description adds context on the specific content provided, aligning with and enhancing the behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose and details.
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?
Fully describes the tool's output and purpose given no parameters or output schema, and clearly contrasts with the sibling 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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Description does not need to add param info, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 what Lity is, its coverage, languages, access status, and links, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'submit_early_access_request' which handles submissions.
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?
Implicitly suggests using this to learn about Lity before submitting a request, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_early_access_requestRequest early access to LityAInspectRegister the user for Lity early access (waitlist). Call ONLY after the user explicitly agreed to share their name and email with Lity; pass consent=true to confirm. Free during early access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | User's name | |
| role | No | Who the user is (default client) | |
| Yes | User's email | ||
| consent | Yes | MUST be true: the user explicitly agreed to share these details with Lity | |
| message | No | Optional: what legal issue to help with | |
| language | No | Preferred language |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and openWorldHint=true (possible out-of-band effects). The description adds that it registers the user for a waitlist and requires consent, but does not disclose potential side effects like confirmation emails or data processing. With openWorldHint set, more detail on side effects would improve transparency.
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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and a policy note. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.
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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key precondition, but omits any information about return values or next steps. Since the output schema is absent, the description should at least hint at what the agent can expect (e.g., success confirmation). This is a notable gap.
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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description reinforces the critical 'consent' parameter by stating it must be true. However, no additional semantic context is added for other parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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 registers users for Lity early access (waitlist), with a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('Lity early access'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_lity_info' which is for retrieving information, not submitting requests.
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: 'Call ONLY after the user explicitly agreed to share their name and email with Lity; pass consent=true to confirm.' This tells the agent when the tool should be invoked and the prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool's purpose is clear enough.
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!