Connect your AI assistant to IBO's MCP server and commission cinematic campaign films conversationally. Payment always stays human-approved.
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 4.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.9/5.
Each tool targets a distinct action: listing offers, creating checkout, verifying payment, uploading files, submitting briefs, handling custom inquiries, and checking statuses. No overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_checkout, get_order, list_offers) using snake_case and descriptive verbs like create, get, list, submit.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for managing production packages, checkouts, uploads, briefs, and custom inquiries. Neither too sparse nor too heavy.
Covers the main workflows (offer selection, payment, asset upload, brief submission, and custom inquiry lifecycle). Minor gaps like order cancellation or brief update tools, but sufficient for core operations.
create_checkoutCreate a deposit checkoutACreate a Stripe Checkout for a package's 50% deposit. Returns checkout_url, stripe_session_id, and amount_due. Show the amount to your user and open checkout_url for THEM to approve and pay; agents never complete payment themselves. Prices are fixed server-side. Pass a stable client_request_id so retries do not create duplicate checkouts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | Offer id from list_offers | |
| client_request_id | Yes | Stable id you generate; makes creation idempotent on retry |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| currency | No | |
| offer_id | No | |
| amount_due | No | |
| checkout_url | No | |
| stripe_session_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: return values (checkout_url, stripe_session_id, amount_due), the user-driven payment workflow (agent must not pay), server-side price fixing, and idempotency via client_request_id. This adds significant context that annotations alone do not provide, without contradicting them.
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 (three sentences), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information: purpose, return values, usage instructions, and idempotency guidance. No wasted words.
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 that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the payment flow, idempotency, and the agent's role, covering all necessary operational details for a checkout 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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds extra semantic value by explaining that client_request_id ensures idempotency and that package prices are fixed server-side, which implies package determines the amount. This goes beyond the schema's basic 'Offer id from list_offers' and 'Stable id you generate.'
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 function: 'Create a Stripe Checkout for a package's 50% deposit.' It specifies the verb ('Create'), resource ('Stripe Checkout'), and scope ('for a package's 50% deposit'), and lists return values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_upload_url or get_inquiry_status.
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 usage context: it instructs to show the amount to the user and open checkout_url for them to pay, and explicitly notes that agents never complete payment themselves. It also advises passing a stable client_request_id for idempotency. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for distinguishing from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_upload_urlGet a presigned asset-upload URLAInspectGet a short-lived presigned URL to upload one brand-asset file to IBO's private storage. Requires order_token from get_order; the storage location is bound to the order server-side. PUT the raw file bytes to url, then reference key in submit_brief files[]. Allowed: jpg png webp pdf svg mp4 mov zip ai psd; 250MB/file, 1GB per order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | Yes | File size in bytes | |
| filename | Yes | ||
| order_token | Yes | From get_order |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| key | No | |
| url | No | |
| error | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; description adds context about short-lived nature of the URL and server-side binding to order. 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?
Three concise, well-structured sentences that front-load the purpose and seamlessly guide the agent through the workflow.
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 exists, the description adequately explains the tool's role in a larger workflow, including allowed formats and size limits. However, it omits explicit details about the response format (e.g., url and key).
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 covers 67% with descriptions for size and order_token. Description adds context for order_token (from get_order) and file size limits, but does not enhance understanding of filename or provide additional parameter constraints beyond 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?
The description states the tool gets a short-lived presigned URL for uploading a brand-asset file to IBO's private storage. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_order (provides token) and submit_brief (uses key).
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 specifies prerequisites (requires order_token from get_order) and post-usage steps (reference key in submit_brief files[]). It also lists allowed file types and size limits, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_inquiry_statusCheck status of a custom production inquiryAWhere a custom inquiry stands: awaiting_confirmation (customer hasn't clicked the emailed link yet) or confirmed with the studio stage (new, replied, proposal_sent, won, closed). PII-free; pass the inquiry_id returned by submit_custom_inquiry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inquiry_id | Yes | From submit_custom_inquiry |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| error | No | |
| stage | No | |
| status | No | |
| updated | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it states the tool is 'PII-free', which is not in annotations, and explains the status categories and their meanings.
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 the main purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy.
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 simple tool with one parameter and existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context: status values, input source, and privacy note. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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% (single parameter). The description adds 'From submit_custom_inquiry' which is helpful but not essential. No additional format or constraints are provided beyond the 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?
The description explicitly states the tool checks where a custom inquiry stands and enumerates the possible statuses, making the purpose very clear. It distinguishes from siblings like get_order and get_project_status by focusing on custom inquiry status.
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 explains when to use the tool (to check status) and the source of the required input (submit_custom_inquiry). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_orderVerify an order after checkoutAVerify payment after checkout and receive an order-scoped access token. Returns paid, package, deposit, and order_token: use order_token for create_upload_url and submit_brief. Payment status can only be established here, never assumed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Stripe checkout session id (cs_...) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| paid | No | |
| total | No | |
| deposit | No | |
| package | No | |
| expires_at | No | |
| order_token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds value by detailing returned fields and emphasizing that payment status is authoritative only here. No contradictions.
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 plus a list of return fields, front-loaded with primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
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 output schema present, description covers when to use, what it returns, and how the output is used in sibling tools. Complete for a single-parameter read operation.
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 session_id fully described in schema. Description does not add new information about the parameter beyond what schema already provides.
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 verifies payment and returns an order token, with specific return fields. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying subsequent use of the token with create_upload_url and submit_brief.
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?
Explicitly states that payment status can only be established here, indicating when to use. Implicitly suggests using before other order-related tools. No explicit when-not but sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_project_statusCheck production status of a paid orderAWhere a paid order is in production. Returns the studio stage (new, brief_received, in_production, review, delivered) plus paid/package/deposit. PII-free; pass the stripe_session_id from create_checkout/get_order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Stripe checkout session id (cs_...) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| paid | No | |
| stage | No | |
| total | No | |
| deposit | No | |
| package | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it is PII-free and returns specific fields, which is useful but not a major behavioral disclosure beyond 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?
Two sentences, no superfluous words. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by details on return values and parameter source. Efficiently conveys necessary 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?
Given the output schema exists to document return values, the description covers input source, return content, and privacy. Could mention handling of invalid session_ids or non-paid orders, but overall adequate for a simple status retrieval 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 coverage is 100% with a basic description. The description adds context on how to obtain the session_id (from create_checkout or get_order), which provides practical guidance beyond the 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?
The title and description clearly state the tool checks production status of a paid order. It specifies the returned fields (studio stage, paid/package/deposit) and distinguishes from siblings like get_inquiry_status by focusing on paid orders.
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 indicates the necessary parameter session_id comes from create_checkout or get_order. It implies usage context (after checkout) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_offersList IBO production packagesAIBO's production packages: stable ids, prices, 50% deposits, deliverables, review rounds, and the scope/refund policy. Call this first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | No | |
| offers | No | |
| studio | No | |
| currency | No | |
| policies | No | |
| how_to_order | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and closed world. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating what the packages contain (stable ids, prices, 50% deposits, deliverables, review rounds, scope/refund policy), and implies id stability. No contradiction.
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 very concise sentences. The first lists key content, the second gives usage direction. No wasted words.
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 parameterless read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what to expect and when to call it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it focuses on what is returned.
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 IBO production packages with specific details (prices, deposits, deliverables). The verb 'list' is implied by 'Call this first' and the title, and it is distinct from sibling tools like create_checkout or get_order.
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 explicit guidance to 'Call this first,' establishing this as the entry point before other actions. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the 'first' instruction gives clear sequential context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_briefSubmit the creative briefAInspectSubmit the creative brief for a PAID order: pass order_token (from get_order; session ids are not accepted here) plus project fields (product, goal, audience, channels, resolution, launch, links, constraints) and files[] from create_upload_url. Delivery resolution must be selected before creative kickoff. Customer identity comes from the verified payment. NOTE: unpaid/anonymous submissions are rejected here; for Custom Production inquiries without payment use the submit_custom_inquiry tool instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| No | |||
| files | No | ||
| links | No | ||
| launch | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| package | No | ||
| product | No | ||
| audience | No | ||
| channels | No | ||
| resolution | No | Final master resolution selected before creative kickoff | |
| constraints | No | ||
| order_token | No | From get_order |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | No | |
| error | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses several key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it rejects unpaid/anonymous submissions, requires order_token (not session ids), derives customer identity from verified payment, and mandates that delivery resolution be selected before creative kickoff. These details add significant context not present in the annotations or schema, and there is no contradiction with the annotations. The description carries the burden well for a write operation.
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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and packs all critical usage constraints without redundancy. Every sentence adds value: the first covers the required inputs and token source, the second covers timing, payment requirements, and the alternative tool. This is appropriately sized 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?
Given the complexity (14 parameters, no required fields, minimal annotations), the description does an excellent job covering the essential behavioral and contextual aspects: payment requirement, token provenance, resolution timing, and alternative tool. It could mention follow-up tracking (e.g., via get_project_status), but that is not essential for selecting and invoking the tool. Overall, it is complete enough for correct usage.
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 low description coverage (14%), so the description compensates by grouping project fields (product, goal, audience, channels, resolution, launch, links, constraints) and explicitly linking order_token to get_order and files to create_upload_url. It also clarifies that session ids are not accepted. However, some parameters like name, email, company, and package are not individually explained, leaving a small gap in semantic clarity for those fields.
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: 'Submit the creative brief for a PAID order'. It specifies the resource (creative brief) and the context (paid order), and differentiates from sibling submit_custom_inquiry by explicitly naming the alternative for unpaid inquiries. This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling distinction.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it requires a paid order, requires order_token from get_order, and rejects session ids. It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use and alternative: 'for Custom Production inquiries without payment use the submit_custom_inquiry tool instead'. This fully satisfies the usage guidelines dimension.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_custom_inquirySubmit a custom production inquiry (no payment)AInspectStart a Custom Production conversation without payment. IMPORTANT: interview your user for the real project details FIRST (what they are promoting, audience, formats, delivery resolution, timing); placeholder inquiries are rejected. A 4K Campaign Series must use this route before checkout. Submits a scope inquiry; IBO then emails the customer a one-click confirmation link (double opt-in), and only a confirmed inquiry reaches the studio. Tell your user to check their inbox and click confirm. IBO replies with scope and proposal within one business day of confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | Yes | What they want to make and why, in real detail (30+ chars; placeholders rejected) | |
| name | Yes | ||
| Yes | Customer's real email; the confirmation link goes here | ||
| links | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| launch | No | ||
| company | No | ||
| product | No | ||
| audience | No | ||
| channels | No | ||
| resolution | No | Required production target: 1080p, 4K mastered, or not applicable for still images | |
| constraints | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | No | |
| error | No | |
| status | No | |
| message | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the double opt-in email workflow: 'IBO then emails the customer a one-click confirmation link... only a confirmed inquiry reaches the studio'. It also states placeholder inquiries are rejected and mentions the one-business-day response time.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains several important instructions in a compact paragraph. Every sentence adds value, though it's a bit dense; but for a complex workflow, this is acceptable.
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 complexity (double opt-in, external email, confirmation flow), the description covers the key workflow steps, constraints, and time expectations. The output schema presumably documents return values, so the description doesn't need to, but some parameter semantics are still lacking.
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?
With only 25% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by suggesting fields to collect ('what they are promoting, audience, formats, delivery resolution, timing') but doesn't explain all parameters (links, notes, constraints, product, etc.). It adds some semantics but not enough for a 12-parameter tool.
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: 'Start a Custom Production conversation without payment' and 'Submits a scope inquiry'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the no-payment route and that a 4K Campaign Series must use this route before checkout.
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 gives explicit usage context: 'A 4K Campaign Series must use this route before checkout' and instructs to interview for real project details first. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but 'before checkout' implies a different payment tool, and the sibling list provides 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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
