MCP server for Jeremy Twogood, Toronto video producer & editor. Projects, reel, resume, booking.
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 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: booking calls, retrieving different types of project details, listing projects, getting profile/resume/reel, and sending messages. There is no overlap that would confuse an agent.
The naming convention is mostly verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., book_call, get_profile, list_projects). Minor deviations like get_reel (informal noun) and send_message (verb_object) are still clear and don't disrupt pattern recognition.
10 tools is well-scoped for a portfolio server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, covering profile, projects, booking, and messaging. The count feels natural and complete.
The tool set covers the main portfolio interactions: viewing profile, resume, reels, projects (with two categories), booking a call, and sending a message. A minor gap is lack of search or filtering for projects, but the core lifecycle is present.
book_callAInspectGet a pre-filled Calendly booking link for a call with Jeremy. Requires agent_name and human_name. Rate limited to 3 action requests per IP per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | Yes | Your agent name or identifier, e.g. "Claude" | |
| human_name | Yes | The name of the human you represent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the rate limit, which is behavioral, but lacks clarity on whether the tool is read-only or creates a booking. Without annotations, the agent might assume it is a mutation.
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 with no extraneous information, efficiently conveying purpose, requirements, and a constraint.
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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does, required parameters, and a rate limit. It does not specify the return format beyond 'pre-filled link', but that is likely sufficient.
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%, and the description merely restates the parameter names without adding additional meaning beyond what the 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 verb 'get' and the resource 'pre-filled Calendly booking link for a call with Jeremy', distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or retrieve other resources.
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 mentions required parameters and a rate limit, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like send_message, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_ai_buildCInspectGet full details for a single AI or software project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Build ID; get valid IDs from list_ai_builds |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get full details,' which implies a read operation, but it does not describe what fields are returned, how errors or missing IDs are handled, or any authentication or rate-limit considerations.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action, though 'AI or software project' is slightly redundant and could have been more precise regarding what an 'AI build' is.
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 single-parameter read tool, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent knows to pass an ID and receive full details. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the vagueness of 'full details' and the absence of error/not-found behavior leave meaningful 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema's id description provides useful guidance by pointing to list_ai_builds for valid IDs, which is sufficient for a single-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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get full details for a single AI or software project.' It indicates a single-entity retrieval operation and is distinct from list_ai_builds, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar-sounding get_project sibling.
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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The word 'single' implies this is for one item rather than a list, and the schema's id description references list_ai_builds, but the main description leaves the choice among get_ai_build, get_project, and list_ai_builds implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_availabilityAInspectGet Jeremy's booking URL and availability information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it retrieves a booking URL and availability but gives no details on side effects, authentication requirements, or what availability information means (e.g., time slots, dates).
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, no redundant information. Front-loaded with the key action and resource.
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 description is sufficient for a simple tool with no parameters, but lacks details on what availability information includes and how it relates to book_call. Additional context on return values or usage would improve completeness.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds context about the output (booking URL and availability), which provides value beyond the empty 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 states the action (get) and resource (Jeremy's booking URL and availability information). It distinguishes from siblings like book_call by focusing on retrieval rather than booking.
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 vs alternatives like book_call or other get tools. The description does not mention scenarios where this tool is appropriate or when it is not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_profileAInspectGet Jeremy Twogood's profile: bio, skills, clients, location, and social links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool retrieves a profile and lists the returned sections, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, mention any variations in response, or describe edge cases. For a simple zero-parameter getter, this is adequate but minimal.
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. It immediately states the verb, resource, and content list, earning its place with every word.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with a straightforward purpose, the description covers what an agent needs to know to select and invoke it correctly. The listed fields give a clear expectation of the return content, though it could have explicitly stated that no input is required or that the data is static.
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 parameter semantics are not applicable. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4, and the description adds useful context about what the resulting profile contains, though it does not need to explain any parameter behavior.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('Jeremy Twogood's profile'), then enumerates the exact content fields: bio, skills, clients, location, and social links. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project, get_reel, and get_resume, which target different resources.
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 makes it obvious that this tool is for retrieving profile information, which is the only sensible use given its zero parameters and the sibling set. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the resource-specific naming provides clear contextual guidance without needing exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_projectAInspectGet full details for a single project, including video content description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Project ID; get valid IDs from list_projects |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly communicates that this is a read operation returning full project details, and specifically calls out video content description. It doesn't disclose error conditions or auth requirements, but for a simple get-by-ID tool the behavioral surface is adequately disclosed.
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 short sentence that states the action, the resource, and a notable content detail. There is no redundancy or filler, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter get operation with no output schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool: it will return full project details and includes video content description. It could be more explicit about the return shape, but 'full details' reasonably covers what an agent needs to know.
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 100%, and the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'Project ID; get valid IDs from list_projects'. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('full details for a single project'), and adds a distinctive detail ('including video content description') that separates it from list_projects and other siblings. The intent 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 implies this tool is for retrieving one project's full details, as opposed to list_projects for listing projects. The parameter schema even points users to list_projects for valid IDs, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_reelAInspectGet Jeremy's showreel description and link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or any side effects. The description merely repeats the purpose without adding behavioral context.
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 sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the 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?
While the description specifies the output contains 'description and link,' it lacks details about the return format (e.g., JSON structure, field names). Given no output schema, this is a noticeable gap, but the low complexity makes it minimally adequate.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by indicating the output contains 'description and link,' which is not evident from the schema alone. Baseline 4 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 retrieves 'Jeremy's showreel description and link,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling getters like get_profile or get_resume by targeting the showreel uniquely.
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 over alternatives. The description only states what it does, without context such as prerequisites or comparison to sibling tools like get_profile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_resumeAInspectGet Jeremy's full structured resume as JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output format (JSON) and that it returns the full resume, but lacks details like idempotency, side effects, or authentication needs. For a simple retrieval, this is adequate but minimal.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. 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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple operation, the description is complete enough. It fully specifies what the tool returns. Could mention its read-only nature, but not necessary.
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?
There are no parameters (0), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it correctly implies no arguments are needed.
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 action (Get) and the resource (Jeremy's full structured resume as JSON). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_profile, get_project, etc., which are for different resources.
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 implies usage (when you need Jeremy's resume) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_ai_buildsBInspectList all of Jeremy's AI and software projects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing ordering, pagination, or what constitutes AI/software projects. Minimal behavioral context.
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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. Could incorporate more detail but remains efficient.
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 or annotations, description provides adequate but not complete context. It does not explain return format or what properties each project includes. Leaves room for ambiguity.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds meaning by specifying the scope (Jeremy's AI and software projects) beyond the empty schema. Acceptable.
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 states it lists Jeremy's AI and software projects, specifying the resource and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list_projects, which might overlap.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_projects or get_ai_build. Implied usage for AI/software projects but lacks conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_projectsAInspectList all of Jeremy's work projects with metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists projects with metadata, which implies a read-only operation, but does not detail any behavioral traits like authentication requirements or performance characteristics. Adequate for a simple list 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 a single sentence of 7 words, containing only essential information without any redundancy. It is maximally concise and front-loaded.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and is a straightforward list operation, the description fully covers what is needed. It is complete for its 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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters defaults to a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since no parameters exist.
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 action ('List') and resource ('projects') and adds specificity with 'Jeremy's work projects with metadata', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project and list_ai_builds.
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 implies when to use (when you need a list of work projects) but does not provide explicit guidelines on when not to use or alternatives. Since the tool is simple with no parameters, the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable but not exemplary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
send_messageAInspectSend a message to Jeremy by email. Requires agent_name (your identifier) and human_name (the person you represent). Rate limited to 3 action requests per IP per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The message to send to Jeremy | |
| agent_name | Yes | Your agent name or identifier, e.g. "Claude" | |
| human_name | Yes | The name of the human you represent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: rate limit of 3 action requests per IP per day. It does not detail side effects, idempotency, or error behavior, but this is sufficient for a simple email send.
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 with no extraneous information. The main action is front-loaded, followed by requirements and constraints. Every sentence 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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (3 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: purpose, required parameters, and a behavioral constraint. It could mention that the message is sent to a specific recipient, but it is adequate.
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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of agent_name (identifier) and human_name (represented person), which clarifies usage beyond the 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 clearly states 'Send a message to Jeremy by email,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are primarily retrieval-oriented (get/list).
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 required parameters (agent_name, human_name) and provides context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, though siblings suggest no other messaging tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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!