Fire department grant-readiness helper.
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 3.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
The three tools have distinct primary functions: building a checklist, extracting requirements, and scoring readiness. However, 'build_firegrant_checklist' and 'score_firegrant_readiness' both relate to checklists, which could cause slight confusion. Descriptions clarify the difference, so the overlap is minor.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: build_, extract_, score_ followed by firegrant_*. This is a predictable and uniform convention across the entire set.
Three tools is well-scoped for a narrow domain like fire grant assistance. Each tool addresses a distinct part of the preparation/assessment workflow, and the count feels neither sparse nor excessive.
The domain appears to be fire grant preparation and readiness assessment, and the tools cover checklist creation, requirement extraction, and scoring. A potential gap might be a tool to locate or filter applicable grants, but the current surface seems sufficient for the stated purpose.
build_firegrant_checklistBuild Firegrant ChecklistBUse this when a user wants a fire-grant application preparation checklist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | ||
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| result | No | |
| preview | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which inform the agent about safety and side effects. The description adds no additional behavioral context—it doesn't explain how the checklist is generated, what inputs are required, or any other operational details. With zero extra info, the score is low.
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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the usage trigger. It has no fluff, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. Still, it 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?
With two parameters, zero schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain parameter meaning or what the checklist output contains. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.
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 schema lists 'text' (required) and 'org' (optional) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify what these parameters mean. An agent cannot infer whether 'text' is the grant narrative or something else, making this a severe 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 the tool's purpose: to provide a fire-grant application preparation checklist. It uses the verb 'use' and the resource 'checklist', making the intent clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like extract_firegrant_requirements or score_firegrant_readiness, though the noun 'checklist' implies a different deliverable.
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 phrase 'Use this when' provides explicit guidance on when to invoke the tool. It gives the trigger condition (user wants a fire-grant application preparation checklist), but does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
extract_firegrant_requirementsExtract Firegrant RequirementsAUse this when a user wants fire-grant requirements extracted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | ||
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| result | No | |
| preview | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond purpose, such as input format, output shape, or edge cases. Hence, it provides minimal additional 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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded, but it under-specifies; still, it earns its place by stating purpose and usage.
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 output schema and annotations, the return type and safety are covered. However, the lack of parameter semantics and any further context leaves the description only minimally complete for practical use.
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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain the 'text' or 'org' parameters, leaving their meaning and usage unclear. Only implicit inference from the tool name suggests 'text' is the input.
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 extracts fire-grant requirements, using a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('fire-grant requirements'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on extraction rather than building checklists or scoring readiness.
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?
Provides an explicit 'when to use' condition ('when a user wants fire-grant requirements extracted'), but does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, making it a clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
score_firegrant_readinessScore Firegrant ReadinessAUse this when a fire department wants a checklist-style readiness assessment for grant text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | No | ||
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| result | No | |
| preview | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond 'checklist-style', which is consistent with the annotations but doesn't disclose output format or edge cases.
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 with no filler, front-loaded with the usage trigger 'Use this when'. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage but omits any explanation of the 'org' parameter and does not elaborate on what the readiness assessment includes. This leaves the agent with an incomplete picture for correct invocation.
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 compensate. It clarifies that 'text' refers to the grant text to be assessed, but 'org' is never mentioned, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The description only partially explains one of two parameters.
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 a 'checklist-style readiness assessment for grant text', which implies scoring readiness. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (build_firegrant_checklist, extract_firegrant_requirements) by focusing on assessment rather than building or extracting, though it doesn't name them explicitly.
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 opening phrase 'Use this when a fire department wants...' gives clear contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, but the scenario is specific enough to guide selection.
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!