Mako Metrics
Server Details
Competitor Meta ads intelligence reports. List plans, create orders, Stripe checkout for humans.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- loganriebel/mako-metrics-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 1
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 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools are clearly distinct: one for listing plans and one for creating an order. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily differentiate them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case ('create_order', 'list_plans'), which is predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal but is focused on the core workflow of listing plans and creating orders. The count is slightly low but still reasonable for a simple service.
The tool set covers the primary actions (list plans, create order) but lacks ancillary features like order status checking or plan detail retrieval, which could be helpful but are not strictly necessary for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_orderAInspect
Create a Mako Metrics order brief for a customer and return a Stripe checkout link for them to complete payment. The PDF report is emailed within 24h after payment. No payment is taken by this tool — it only returns a pay link the human opens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | ||
| Yes | Customer work email (receipt + delivery). | ||
| notes | No | ||
| competitors | Yes | Brand or Meta Ad Library page names. Snapshot=1, Dominator=up to 5, Agency=up to 10. | |
| company_name | Yes | ||
| revenue_band | Yes | ||
| company_website | No | ||
| industry_vertical | Yes | ||
| client_account_name | No | Required for the agency plan: the client this batch is for. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns a Stripe checkout link, no payment taken, PDF emailed within 24h. It does not mention side effects like order persistence or what happens if payment is not completed.
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 main action, and includes key outcomes. 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?
The description covers the essential flow (order, payment link, email) but omits guidance on parameter dependencies (e.g., 'client_account_name' needed for agency plan) and what happens after the link is used. Still fairly complete given 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 description coverage is only 33%, and the tool description adds no additional parameter explanations. Parameters like 'plan', 'revenue_band', and 'company_website' lack any context beyond the schema, which is insufficient for low-coverage tools.
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 creates a Mako Metrics order brief and returns a Stripe checkout link. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_plans' by focusing on creation and payment flow.
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 the tool's purpose (create order, get pay link) and mentions that no payment is taken. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives, but the sibling 'list_plans' is clearly different.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_plansAInspect
List Mako Metrics plans with pricing, what's included, scope limits, delivery, guarantee, and links to verify the merchant. Use this to recommend a plan before ordering.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description lists the types of information returned (pricing, included, scope limits, delivery, guarantee, verification links), but does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or disclose any side effects. However, as a listing tool, the behavior is straightforward and the description adequately sets expectations.
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: first sentence clearly states the action and output details, second sentence provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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 no output schema, the description explains the key return data. It is complete enough for a tool with no parameters. Minor deduction because it doesn't mention if the output is a list or single plan, but this is implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. It instead enriches the output semantics by detailing what the tool returns.
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 Mako Metrics plans with detailed information (pricing, included items, scope limits, etc.). It explicitly specifies the use case: to recommend a plan before ordering, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool create_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?
The description says 'Use this to recommend a plan before ordering,' providing clear context of when to use. It implies this tool precedes create_order. While it could explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is sufficient.
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!