composer
Server Details
Composes + runs multi-step external-data workflows for one quoted USDC price (x402).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: plan_workflow handles scoping and pricing, while run_workflow executes the paid workflow. There is no functional overlap.
Both tool names follow the exact same verb_noun pattern (plan_workflow, run_workflow), providing a predictable and clear naming convention.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose of planning and executing multi-step tasks. The tool count fits the service model; additional tools for cancellation or status polling could be added but are not essential.
The core workflow of plan-then-run is covered, but there are minor gaps: no way to cancel a plan, list past workflows, or check status without running. The server lacks lifecycle management beyond the primary actions.
Available Tools
2 toolsplan_workflowAInspect
Ask Composer whether it can do a multi-step data/research task for you, and at what price. Free — nothing is charged, no payment involved.
Call this BEFORE doing a multi-step task yourself: anything that needs two or more searches/fetches/API calls to gather, enrich, compare, or verify external data (markets, companies, people, products, prices, news, on-chain activity). Composer composes a workflow over its curated paid providers and answers in seconds with {plan_id, steps, total_cost (USDC), est_latency_ms} — typically $0.02–$0.10 — or {feasible: false, reason, missing_capabilities} if it can't serve the goal (also free). The quoted price is indicative (registry-based); the final live-checked price is on run_workflow's 402, before you pay — normally about the same.
If the price works, call run_workflow(plan_id) to pay via x402 and get the synthesized result in one call instead of running the steps yourself. A run that fails after payment is refunded.
Goals are open-ended. Two validated fast paths:
• competitor-pricing — e.g. "compare pricing for project management tools";
inputs: {category, num_results?}.
• diligence-pack — e.g. "run diligence on Anthropic";
inputs: {subject, token_address?, chain?, num_results?}.
agent_id is optional — identify yourself for attribution if you like.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | ||
| inputs | No | ||
| agent_id | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even without annotations, the description covers behavioral aspects comprehensively: it states the tool is free, the quoted price is indicative, the final price is checked on run_workflow, and refunds are issued if a run fails after payment. It also describes the output schema and what happens if the goal is infeasible.
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 longer than ideal but well-structured and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, explaining purpose, usage, output, and examples. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but clarity is maintained.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (multi-step planning, pricing, two fast paths, integration with run_workflow), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to call, output details, failure cases, refund policy, and example inputs. The presence of an output schema (not shown) further reduces the burden on the description. It is fully 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the 'goal' parameter implicitly, providing examples for 'inputs' via two validated fast paths (competitor-pricing, diligence-pack) with detailed sub-parameters, and noting that 'agent_id' is optional for attribution. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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's purpose: 'Ask Composer whether it can do a multi-step data/research task for you, and at what price.' It specifies the scope (multi-step tasks requiring multiple API calls) and distinguishes it from doing the task manually or using run_workflow.
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 guides when to use the tool: 'Call this BEFORE doing a multi-step task yourself: anything that needs two or more searches/fetches/API calls...' It also provides clear alternatives: 'If the price works, call run_workflow(plan_id) to pay via x402 and get the synthesized result in one call instead of running the steps yourself.' This gives excellent usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_workflowAInspect
Run a workflow Composer planned for you and get the synthesized result. PAID via x402 — one payment replaces the multi-step work you'd otherwise do yourself.
Pass the plan_id from plan_workflow. This call is payment-gated: it returns an
x402 402 carrying the final live-checked price (normally ≈ plan_workflow's
indicative quote); your x402 client pays it (settled on Base), and Composer then
executes the multi-step workflow — paying each provider from its own wallet — and
returns the synthesized answer. You pay Composer's price for the outcome
(principal/reseller); the 402 is authoritative, and a run that fails after
payment is refunded.
agent_id is optional — identify yourself for attribution if you like.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | Yes | ||
| agent_id | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: payment via x402 with live-checked price, execution of multi-step workflow, provider payments from Composer's wallet, refunds for failed runs, and optional agent attribution. This is comprehensive.
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 clear and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains necessary details about payment and parameters, but is slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.
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 complexity (payment, execution, refunds) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key points: how to use, payment process, and failure handling. It does not detail the output format but this is acceptable as output schema exists.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains 'plan_id' as the output of 'plan_workflow' and 'agent_id' as optional attribution. This adds essential 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 states 'Run a workflow Composer planned for you and get the synthesized result' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'plan_workflow' by focusing on execution after planning.
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 ties usage to having a 'plan_id' from 'plan_workflow' and explains the payment-gated nature. It implies when to use (after planning) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!