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 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
plan_workflow and run_workflow have clearly distinct purposes: one plans and quotes, the other executes after payment. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (plan_workflow, run_workflow), making the naming predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but covers the essential workflow lifecycle. It's slightly thin yet appropriate for its focused purpose.
The two tools cover the core planning and execution steps. Minor gaps like listing or canceling plans exist but are not critical for the intended use case.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the call is free, no payment involved, output includes plan_id/steps/cost/estimated latency, and failure returns feasibility false. It also explains that the price is indicative and final price confirmed on run_workflow.
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-organized: purpose first, then usage rules, then behavior details. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more compact but still effective.
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 3 parameters (1 required), no annotations, but presence of output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to call it, what to expect, and how it relates to the sibling. Examples enhance 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning for 'goal' (free text describing the task) and 'inputs' (provides examples for two fast paths with specific fields). However, 'agent_id' is only mentioned as optional without further explanation, leaving a minor gap.
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 that the tool asks Composer about multi-step data/research tasks and pricing. It specifies the resource (Composer) and action (plan workflow). It distinguishes from the sibling tool run_workflow, which executes the plan.
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 states when to use this tool ('call this BEFORE doing a multi-step task yourself') and provides clear criteria (any task needing two or more external calls). It also advises calling run_workflow if price works, effectively guiding the agent on next steps.
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?
No annotations provided, but description thoroughly covers payment mechanism (x402, 402 return, live-checked price), refund policy for failed runs, and wallet usage. Very transparent.
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?
Description is informative with front-loaded purpose and detailed payment flow. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly.
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?
Covers payment, parameters, failure refund. Output schema exists so return format not needed. Complete enough for a payment-gated execution 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains plan_id as 'from plan_workflow' and agent_id as optional attribution. Adds necessary meaning beyond 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 it runs a pre-planned workflow and returns the synthesized result. It distinguishes from sibling 'plan_workflow' by specifying 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?
Explicitly says to pass plan_id from plan_workflow and describes the payment-gated flow. Could add more explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but overall clear.
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!