MintMCP Docs
Server Details
Search and read the official MintMCP documentation, the enterprise MCP gateway.
- 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 4.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: two fetch variants (by id vs by URL), one for listing the table of contents, and one for searching. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use lowercase verb_noun pattern (fetch, get_page, list_docs, search), consistent and predictable.
Four tools is on the minimal side but provides essential documentation operations: search, list, and two fetch methods. Slightly more could be added (e.g., get categories) but the set is not insufficient.
The tool surface covers the main use cases: discovering docs, searching, and retrieving content. No major gaps, though a tool to list only categories or tags could enhance exploration.
Available Tools
4 toolsfetchFetch a MintMCP docs pageARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch the full markdown content of a MintMCP documentation page by its id. Use it after search (or list_docs) to read a page in full before answering, for example the Snowflake connector setup, the SCIM provisioning guide, or the tool governance reference. If you have a public docs URL or a slug instead of a search-result id, use get_page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The document id returned by search or list_docs. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| url | Yes | |
| text | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| metadata | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's safety profile is clear. The description does not add behavioral details beyond annotations, but there is no contradiction and the output schema covers return format.
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 purpose and action, followed by usage context and alternative. 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 a single parameter, full schema coverage, output schema, clear annotations, and sibling tools listed, the description provides complete context: workflow, examples, and alternative tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the parameter. The description implies the id comes from search/list_docs but adds no new semantic detail 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 clearly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('full markdown content of a MintMCP documentation page'), and the parameter ('by its id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting with get_page for URL/slug inputs.
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 guidance: 'Use it after search (or list_docs) to read a page in full before answering', and clearly states the alternative 'If you have a public docs URL or a slug instead of a search-result id, use get_page.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_pageGet a MintMCP docs pageARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch a MintMCP documentation page from a public docs URL or a slug, for example "https://www.mintmcp.com/docs/security/tool-governance" or just "security/tool-governance". Use it when a user pastes a docs link or names a page directly. It returns the same full markdown content as fetch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | A docs page URL or slug, e.g. "https://www.mintmcp.com/docs/enterprise/sso" or "enterprise/sso". |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| url | Yes | |
| text | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| metadata | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. Description adds that it returns full markdown content and accepts multiple input formats (URL or slug), adding value beyond annotations. 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds essential 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 one parameter, output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect. No gaps identified.
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 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter. Description adds concrete examples and clarifies it handles both full URLs and slugs, enhancing 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 clearly states the verb 'fetch' and the resource 'MintMCP documentation page', with examples of inputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'fetch' by specifying it handles docs pages and from 'list_docs' by fetching a single page.
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 says 'Use it when a user pastes a docs link or names a page directly', providing clear context. Also compares to sibling 'fetch' by noting the return format is the same, helping agents decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_docsList MintMCP docsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List the MintMCP documentation table of contents, grouped by category (Getting Started, Architecture, connectors, Enterprise, Agent Monitor, and more). Each entry has a page id you can pass to fetch. Use it to see what the docs cover or to browse a category before reading a page. Pass an optional category to list just that group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category name to filter by, e.g. "Enterprise" or "Agent Monitor". |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| categories | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that results are grouped by category and include page ids, which is useful but not beyond what annotations imply. 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?
Three concise sentences front-load the main action and then provide relevant details. No redundant or unnecessary 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 the simple tool (1 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers usage, results (grouped table of contents with page ids), and an optional filter. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand and invoke 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional 'category' parameter, describing it as a filter. The description reiterates this same info ('Pass an optional category to list just that group') without adding new detail like format or examples.
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 the documentation table of contents grouped by category, with each entry containing a page id. It distinguishes from siblings like fetch and get_page by focusing on listing/overview rather than fetching content.
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 it: to see what docs cover or browse a category. It mentions the optional category filter. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the sibling context (fetch, get_page, search) implies alternatives for fetching or searching specific content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch MintMCP docsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search the full MintMCP documentation and get back matching pages with their ids, titles, and URLs. Use this first for any MintMCP question: setup, capabilities, security, or a specific connector (Snowflake, Slack, GitHub) or feature (SCIM, SIEM export, prompt security, Coworker Agents). Then pass a result id to the fetch tool to read the page. Coverage spans architecture, enterprise controls, and per-connector setup guides.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | What to look for, in natural language or keywords. Examples: "connect Snowflake", "SCIM provisioning", "block risky agent commands", "set up SSO with Okta", "Coworker Agent Slack". |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnly and idempotent. Description adds that it returns ids/titles/URLs, coverage spans architecture and per-connector guides, which is useful context beyond annotations. 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 sentences: first states purpose and return format, second provides usage guidance and scope. No unnecessary 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?
With one parameter, output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (ids, titles, URLs), coverage scope, and next step (fetch tool). Complete for a search 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%, and the parameter description in the schema is detailed with examples. The tool description does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 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 it searches MintMCP docs and returns matching pages with ids, titles, URLs. It lists specific use cases (setup, connectors, features) and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning passing a result id to the fetch tool.
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 says 'Use this first for any MintMCP question' and instructs to then pass a result id to the fetch tool. Provides clear context on when to use and what to do next, with no alternatives needed beyond the sibling tools.
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!