browserspendguard-mcp
Server Details
Approval receipts for AI browser purchases.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- clauxel/browser-spend-guard-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 1.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct function: evaluating purchases, exporting receipts, listing alerts, and recording approvals. No overlap in purpose.
All tools use consistent snake_case with a clear verb_noun pattern (evaluate_purchase, export_purchase_receipt, list_budget_alerts, record_approval).
4 tools cover the core operations of a purchase guard system without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers key actions—evaluate, export, list alerts, approve—but lacks tools for creating/updating alerts or managing purchase records directly.
Available Tools
4 toolsevaluate_purchaseDInspect
BrowserSpend Guard evaluate purchase
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It gives no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only or destructive.
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 extremely short but at the expense of clarity. It does not earn its space because it provides no useful information beyond the tool name.
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 zero annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot understand what this tool does or how to invoke it correctly.
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%, and the description fails to explain the purpose or expected values of the 'sample' and 'context' parameters, leaving the agent with no semantic information.
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 'BrowserSpend Guard evaluate purchase' is vague; it does not specify what aspect of a purchase is evaluated (e.g., risk, approval, spending limit) and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'record_approval' or 'list_budget_alerts'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool should be selected over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
export_purchase_receiptCInspect
BrowserSpend Guard export purchase receipt
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'export' without clarifying side effects, output format, or required permissions. No annotations exist to compensate.
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?
Extremely concise but at the expense of content. The single phrase provides no structure or prioritization of 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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and two cryptic parameters, the description is completely inadequate for agent decision-making.
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 0% parameter coverage. The description does not explain what 'sample' or 'context' mean, leaving the agent with no semantic help.
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 the action 'export purchase receipt' but adds little beyond the tool name. It does not differentiate from siblings like evaluate_purchase or record_approval.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_budget_alertsDInspect
BrowserSpend Guard list budget alerts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or permissions required. The description is completely opaque.
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 extremely short but not concise in a helpful way; it lacks clarity and substance. Being brief does not compensate for being uninformative.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide any useful information for an AI agent to select or invoke the tool correctly.
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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters (sample, context). The tool description adds no information about what these parameters represent or how to use them.
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 'BrowserSpend Guard list budget alerts' is awkward and essentially restates the tool name without adding clarity. It does not differentiate from siblings like evaluate_purchase or record_approval.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or when alternatives might be better. No context for typical usage is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
record_approvalCInspect
BrowserSpend Guard record approval
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | ||
| context | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'record approval', implying a write operation, but does not reveal side effects, idempotency, permissions, or error conditions. This is minimal 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 very short but under-specified. It uses only a phrase, lacking any structure or clarification. Being too brief without substance reduces helpfulness.
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 lack of output schema, no annotations, and two unexplained parameters (one required), the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It is critically incomplete.
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 explain parameters. It does not mention 'sample' or 'context', leaving their meanings entirely unknown. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 'BrowserSpend Guard record approval' indicates the tool is for recording an approval within BrowserSpend Guard, which is specific enough to convey purpose. However, it lacks detail to distinguish from siblings; for example, it is unclear how this differs from evaluate_purchase or list_budget_alerts.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like evaluate_purchase, nor does it mention prerequisites or excluding conditions.
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!