Grant readiness and application checklist generator for schools/PTAs/nonprofits.
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 3.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct step in the grant workflow: extraction, checklist building, evidence gathering, and readiness scoring. The names and descriptions clearly differentiate the purpose of each tool with no overlapping responsibilities.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: build_application_checklist, extract_grant_requirements, generate_evidence_list, score_grant_readiness. The verbs and nouns are specific and uniformly structured.
Four tools is ideal for the focused domain of grant operations. Each tool contributes a necessary function and the set feels neither bloated nor sparse.
The tools cover a complete workflow: extracting requirements, building an application checklist, generating evidence lists, and scoring readiness. There are no obvious dead ends or missing essential operations for the server's stated purpose.
build_application_checklistBuild Application ChecklistAUse this when a user wants an application checklist from grant requirements.
| 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, so the description need not restate safety. It adds minimal behavioral context—only that the checklist is derived from grant requirements—without detailing processing specifics or edge cases. The description does not contradict the 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It has no filler or redundant content, earning high marks for 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?
The tool has a simple interface with an output schema and safety annotations, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it omits parameter guidance for 'org' and provides no mention of expected input formatting or relationship to sibling tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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 carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It implies that the required 'text' parameter contains the grant requirements, but it does not explain the optional 'org' parameter or how it affects the checklist. This is a significant gap for a tool with 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 identifies the tool's function: building an application checklist from grant requirements. The verb 'build' and resource 'application checklist' distinguish it from sibling tools that extract requirements, generate evidence lists, or score readiness. This is a specific, non-tautological statement of purpose.
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 the tool: 'Use this when a user wants an application checklist from grant requirements.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, so it falls short of the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
extract_grant_requirementsExtract Grant RequirementsAUse this when a user wants grant requirements extracted from source 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 behavioral context beyond the input source ('source text'), which is already evident from the schema. No contradiction with 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the usage context.
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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits any guidance on the optional 'org' parameter and does not elaborate on the extraction behavior or expected output structure beyond what the schema might imply. Overall, it is minimally viable but has gaps.
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 mentions 'source text' aligning with the required 'text' parameter, but does not explain the optional 'org' parameter at all. This leaves a significant semantic gap for parameter usage.
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 grant requirements from source text, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like build_application_checklist and score_grant_readiness, which have different purposes.
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: use this when a user wants grant requirements extracted from source text. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition is explicit enough for an agent to select it over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_evidence_listGenerate Evidence ListAUse this when a user wants a list of supporting evidence/documents to gather for a grant.
| 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 destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the subject matter (evidence/documents for grant) but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like return formatting or side effects. It is consistent with 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, efficient, 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?
The tool is relatively simple with 2 parameters and an output schema, but without parameter explanations the description is incomplete. It tells when to use but not what inputs to provide, leaving a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 has no descriptions (0% coverage) and the description does not mention the parameters (text, org) or how they map to the evidence list. The agent gets no guidance on what to provide for the required text parameter or the optional org parameter.
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 generates a list of supporting evidence/documents to gather for a grant, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the outcome from sibling tools that build checklists or extract requirements.
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 opens with 'Use this when...' which explicitly signals the trigger condition. It doesn't name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
score_grant_readinessScore Grant ReadinessAUse this when a user wants a grant-readiness checklist from grant text and organization context.
| 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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds the context that the output is a checklist and that inputs include text and org, which is helpful. However, it doesn't provide deeper behavioral detail (e.g., scoring logic or side effects), and no contradiction exists.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the use case and inputs without any wasted words. It is efficient and easy to parse.
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, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essentials: when to use, what it does, and the key inputs. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could elaborate on scoring criteria.
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 maps 'text' to 'grant text' and 'org' to 'organization context', which adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't mention that org is optional, 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 generates a grant-readiness checklist using grant text and organization context. It uses a specific resource ('grant-readiness checklist') and implies the action, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on application checklists or requirement extraction.
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 says 'Use this when a user wants a grant-readiness checklist...', providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the use case 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!