FoundMoney
Server Details
Search open US class-action settlements to claim + official free state unclaimed-money portals.
- 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 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches class-action settlements, the other provides unclaimed property portals. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools use a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (search_settlements, unclaimed_money_portal), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a domain like 'found money' which could encompass more operations, but the two tools cover distinct and essential entry points.
The server covers basic search for settlements and state portals, but lacks direct unclaimed money search, claim filing, or multi-state aggregation, leaving notable gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolssearch_settlementsAInspect
Search currently-open US class-action settlements you may be able to claim for free. Filter by keyword (company/brand), category (e.g. data-breach, privacy, junk-fees), and whether proof is required. Returns each settlement's payout, claim deadline, days-left, proof requirement, category, and official claim URL. Sorted by soonest deadline. Use to find money a user may be owed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 100). | |
| keyword | No | Company/brand or topic to match, e.g. 'Equifax' or 'breach'. | |
| category | No | Category slug filter, e.g. 'data-breach', 'privacy', 'junk-fees', 'auto-vehicle'. | |
| noProofOnly | No | If true, only return settlements that appear to need no purchase proof. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return fields and sorting but doesn't mention read-only nature, authentication needs, or any side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core action, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers parameter details, return fields, ordering, and usage context. Missing only minor behavioral traits.
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%, but description adds meaning by clarifying keyword as 'company/brand or topic', category as 'slug filter', and noProofOnly filter purpose. Also mentions result sorting, which is not in 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?
Description clearly specifies verb 'Search', resource 'currently-open US class-action settlements', and unique scope 'you may be able to claim for free'. It distinguishes from sibling 'unclaimed_money_portal' by focusing on class-action settlements specifically.
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?
Description states when to use: 'to find money a user may be owed' via class-action settlements. It doesn't explicitly exclude sibling use cases, but context is clear enough for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
unclaimed_money_portalAInspect
Get the official, free unclaimed-property (unclaimed money) search portal for a US state plus the national NAUPA/missingmoney.com link. Use to direct someone to where they can search for forgotten bank accounts, refunds, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | State name or 2-letter code, e.g. 'Texas' or 'TX'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the tool returns a portal link, without disclosing whether it performs a search, fetches data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Significant gaps for a simple lookup tool.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though could be slightly more structured with explicit output details.
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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is partially complete but lacks explanation of the return value format (e.g., what the result looks like). With no output schema, the description should clarify output structure, which it does not.
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% with the parameter 'state' described as 'State name or 2-letter code'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score of 3.
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 retrieves the official unclaimed-property search portal for a US state, with a verb ('Get') and specific resource ('unclaimed-property search portal'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'search_settlements' by specifying 'unclaimed money' vs settlements.
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 includes a usage directive ('Use to direct someone to where they can search...'), providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond the sibling context.
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!