Generate small-business compliance calendars and renewal checklists.
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 3.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct compliance artifact (calendar, reminder plan, documents, renewal items), but create_reminder_plan and generate_compliance_calendar both involve scheduling, and explain_required_documents with list_renewal_items both produce checklists, so some confusion is possible.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: create_reminder_plan, explain_required_documents, generate_compliance_calendar, list_renewal_items. This is highly predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a niche compliance OS, covering the core outputs without bloat. Each tool earns its place.
The set covers the main compliance information needs: calendar generation, reminders, document checklists, and renewal items. Minor gaps exist around managing or updating these outputs, but for a generation-focused server, coverage is solid.
create_reminder_planCreate Reminder PlanAUse this when a user wants a reminder-plan outline from a compliance calendar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vertical | No | Compliance calendar vertical identifier. |
| 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, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds the context that the outline is derived 'from a compliance calendar,' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the usage trigger and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.
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 low complexity: one parameter with full schema coverage, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations. The description, while minimal, sufficiently defines when to use the tool, and the output schema presumably documents return values. The only minor gap is not elaborating what a 'reminder-plan outline' entails, but this is not critical for 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?
The only parameter 'vertical' already has a description in the schema, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 indicates the tool produces a reminder-plan outline from a compliance calendar, which distinguishes it from siblings like generate_compliance_calendar (which produces the calendar itself) and list_renewal_items. However, the phrasing 'Use this when' is more of a usage instruction than a direct statement of function, though the intent is still clear.
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 ('when a user wants a reminder-plan outline'), providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the condition is specific enough to guide selection among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
explain_required_documentsExplain Required DocumentsAUse this when a user wants a checklist of documents likely needed for a compliance lane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vertical | No | Compliance calendar vertical identifier. |
| 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 safety profile is clear. The description adds 'likely needed,' indicating the checklist is heuristic rather than exhaustive. However, it doesn't elaborate on output behavior beyond what the schema provides.
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 one sentence, front-loaded with the usage condition, and contains no filler or redundant information.
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 simple with one optional parameter, an output schema, and rich annotations. The description covers purpose and usage, but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives and limitations. Still, it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 100% as the parameter 'vertical' is fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: producing a checklist of documents for a compliance lane. It uses a specific resource ('documents') and context ('compliance lane'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_reminder_plan or generate_compliance_calendar.
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 starts with 'Use this when a user wants...' providing a clear trigger condition. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the condition is specific enough for a simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_compliance_calendarGenerate Compliance CalendarAUse this when a user wants a starter compliance calendar for a supported business vertical.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vertical | No | Compliance calendar vertical identifier. |
| 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. The description adds 'starter' and 'supported business vertical', hinting at scope limitations, but does not disclose behavior for unsupported verticals or output details. Slightly above baseline but not rich.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the usage context. Every word is meaningful.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter, output schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It covers when to use it, and the output schema handles return values. Minor gaps like handling unsupported verticals are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 covers the single parameter 'vertical' with a description, and the description's mention of 'supported business vertical' adds a slight constraint hint, but no further semantic meaning beyond the schema is provided. Baseline 3 for full coverage.
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 indicates the tool generates a starter compliance calendar for a supported business vertical. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_reminder_plan and list_renewal_items by the unique resource (compliance calendar), though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
It provides an explicit trigger: 'Use this when a user wants a starter compliance calendar for a supported business vertical.' It gives clear context but does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_renewal_itemsList Renewal ItemsAUse this when a user wants likely renewal/checklist items from a compliance lane.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vertical | No | Compliance calendar vertical identifier. |
| 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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance by saying items are 'likely' renewal/checklist items, implying a heuristic or predictive component. No contradiction with annotations 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 purpose and usage trigger. It contains no redundant fluff and every word contributes meaning.
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 one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequately complete for the tool's low complexity. It could have been more explicit about alternatives or output details, but the 'likely' phrasing gives some hint about the content.
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 100% coverage with a full description of the only parameter (vertical). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 lists renewal/checklist items from a compliance lane, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing rather than creating, explaining, or generating. The word 'likely' adds a slight ambiguity but the overall purpose is unambiguous.
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 begins with 'Use this when a user wants...' which explicitly indicates the trigger condition. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear for the intended scenario and differentiates it implicitly from sibling tools.
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!