Returns personal finance data such as cost of living, tax rates, and exchange rates from official sources.
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 2.7/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of personal finance (budget, country comparisons, portfolio, net worth, retirement, salary, tax) with no apparent overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using verbs like 'build', 'compare', 'export', 'get', 'run' followed by a descriptive noun phrase.
With 11 tools covering various personal finance analysis tasks, the count is well-scoped—neither too few to be useful nor too many to cause confusion.
The set covers key areas like budget, portfolio, net worth, retirement, salary, and tax, but may lack more granular operations like transaction management, which could be intentional for an analysis-focused server.
build_budget_sankeyBInspectBuild a read-only Sankey-style monthly budget flow from allocation percentages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | Yes | ||
| food_pct | Yes | ||
| housing_pct | Yes | ||
| savings_pct | Yes | ||
| transport_pct | Yes | ||
| utilities_pct | Yes | ||
| monthly_income | Yes | ||
| discretionary_pct | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description declares the tool as 'read-only', which is a behavioral trait, but does not elaborate on other aspects such as whether data is stored, what happens on invalid inputs, or the output format. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.
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, which is concise and front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from structured breakdown of parameters or usage notes.
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 8 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not specify output format, constraints (e.g., percentages must sum to 100), error handling, or what a Sankey diagram looks like in the response.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only generically mentions 'allocation percentages' without explaining any of the 8 parameters individually. Users get no guidance on the meaning or expected values of parameters like housing_pct, food_pct, etc.
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 builds a Sankey-style monthly budget flow from allocation percentages. The verb 'build' and resource 'budget flow' plus format 'Sankey-style' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like portfolio analysis and salary comparison by focusing on budget visualization.
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 for visualizing a budget breakdown but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as ensuring percentages sum to 100%. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compare_disposable_incomeCInspectCompare disposable income outcomes across countries for a given gross income.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| currency | Yes | ||
| countries | No | ||
| gross_income | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like whether it reads data, caches results, or requires authentication. It only states the purpose, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or assumptions (e.g., tax model used).
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 waste, but it is too brief to convey necessary details. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it. It fails to explain parameter dependencies, output format, or constraints.
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 0%, and the description mentions only 'gross income' out of four parameters. It does not explain the meaning or format of 'limit', 'currency', or 'countries', leaving the agent to infer or guess.
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 compares disposable income outcomes across countries for a given gross income. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like run_salary_comparison which likely handles gross salary comparison. However, it could be more precise about what 'disposable income outcomes' entails.
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 over alternatives such as run_salary_comparison or run_tax_estimate. The description only implies usage for a given gross income but lacks context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
export_portfolio_csvCInspectExport portfolio records to CSV format for external analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the export action. Missing details like read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or output handling.
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 single sentence is concise but under-specified. It could retain conciseness while adding critical info like parameter roles.
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, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is highly incomplete. Lacks details on return format, mechanism (download vs inline), and authentication needs.
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 0%, and the description does not mention parameters at all. Does not explain how 'to' and 'from' dates affect the export.
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 (export), resource (portfolio records), and format (CSV). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on different operations like budget building, comparisons, or projections.
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 versus alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites, context, 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_account_allocationCInspectReturn current account allocation by type for a specific date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | Yes | ||
| currency | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns aggregate data, how 'current' relates to the as_of date, or any rate limits or permissions.
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 12 words, making it concise. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it may be too brief for a tool with no other documentation.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'by type' includes (e.g., asset classes, account types), nor does it provide return format or example values. A more complete description would clarify the scope of the allocation.
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 0%, and the description does not mention the two parameters (as_of, currency). The schema provides minimal info (type, format, length), but the description adds no additional meaning or usage context.
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 returns account allocation by type for a specific date using a verb ('Return') and specifying the resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools which focus on broader portfolio or financial summaries.
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 versus alternatives like get_portfolio_historical_timeline or get_net_worth_summary. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_net_worth_summaryBInspectReturn net worth totals and trend for a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| currency | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full weight of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The minimal description only hints at the output but lacks safety/behavioral guarantees.
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 concise sentence that states the core function. It is appropriately front-loaded and lacks extraneous text, though it could benefit from additional details without becoming verbose.
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 and three required parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'totals' and 'trend' entail, nor the output format. Sibling tools suggest financial data, but the description alone is too vague for confident use.
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 0%, but the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and types. For example, 'currency' is only a 3-character string with no indication it should be an ISO code. The tool name implies net worth but parameters are unclear on format or constraints.
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 returns 'net worth totals and trend for a date range,' with a specific verb ('return') and resource ('net worth summary'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_portfolio_total_value by focusing on net worth summary over a range.
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 use for date-range queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_portfolio_total_value or get_account_allocation. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_portfolio_historical_timelineCInspectReturn historical portfolio record entries in a selected currency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| currency | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that entries are returned, with no mention of side effects, authentication needs, date range behavior, currency handling, or error cases.
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 of 8 words is concise, but it sacrifices completeness. While efficient, it lacks necessary details for an effective tool description.
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 annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to describe the return format, date range filtering behavior, currency constraints, or any limits. This is inadequate for an AI agent to use 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must provide parameter details. It only mentions currency ('in a selected currency'), but does not describe the 'to' and 'from' date parameters at all. No additional meaning beyond parameter names.
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 'Return' and resource 'historical portfolio record entries', and adds a filter qualifier 'in a selected currency'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_portfolio_performance which focuses on performance metrics, but 'record entries' is somewhat vague and could be more explicit.
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 versus alternatives such as get_portfolio_performance or run_tax_estimate. The description lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use, or appropriate date ranges.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_portfolio_performanceBInspectReturn per-asset-type portfolio change metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. It only states what it returns, missing important 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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word adds value, making it appropriately concise.
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 does not explain return format or structure. 'Change metrics' is ambiguous (e.g., absolute change, percentage). For a simple tool, it may be adequate, but it leaves room for interpretation.
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 no parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the description adds meaningful context: 'per-asset-type portfolio change metrics' clarifies the output dimensions. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and this description meets it.
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 'Return' and resource 'per-asset-type portfolio change metrics', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_portfolio_total_value' or 'get_net_worth_summary'. However, 'change metrics' is somewhat vague and could be more precise.
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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention any specific usage context or exclude any scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_portfolio_total_valueBInspectReturn current total portfolio value based on latest account records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks detail beyond stating it uses 'latest account records.' With no annotations, it fails to disclose auth needs, caching, error behavior, or what accounts are included. However, the tool name implies read-only, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.
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 wasted words, front-loading the verb 'Return.' It could add brief parameter guidance without losing conciseness, but overall structure is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core action but omits usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context. It is minimally acceptable but leaves 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?
The schema defines a single 'currency' parameter but the description does not mention it at all. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify format (e.g., ISO 4217), valid values, or impact. It provides zero parameter insight.
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 returns the current total portfolio value using latest account records. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('total portfolio value'), and is easily distinguished from siblings like get_portfolio_performance or get_account_allocation.
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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like get_net_worth_summary or get_portfolio_performance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_retirement_projectionCInspectProject retirement savings against target spending horizon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| current_age | Yes | ||
| rate_of_return | Yes | ||
| retirement_age | Yes | ||
| annual_expenses | Yes | ||
| current_savings | Yes | ||
| life_expectancy | Yes | ||
| annual_contributions | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral details. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it triggers side effects, or what permissions are needed, leaving the agent uninformed about potential impacts.
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 only one sentence, which is concise, but it lacks essential information given the tool's complexity. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, resulting in an under-specified definition.
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?
Despite having 7 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides almost no context about return values, edge cases, or assumptions. It is wholly inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 7 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation of these parameters. The agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 projects retirement savings against a target spending horizon, identifying the verb 'project' and resource 'retirement savings'. It implies a financial planning use, which distinguishes it from siblings like budget building or salary comparison, though it lacks explicit differentiation.
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 versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or indicate when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_salary_comparisonCInspectCompare salary taxation and net outcomes for a country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | ||
| currency | Yes | ||
| gross_salary | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states a comparison function but does not mention if it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or produces side effects.
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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It could include more detail without being verbose, so it does not fully earn 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 lack of output schema, annotations, and presence of related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, how to interpret results, or what constitutes 'net outcomes'.
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 0%, and the description adds minimal value. 'Compare salary taxation and net outcomes for a country' does not explain the meaning or format of the parameters (country, currency, gross_salary) beyond what the schema already shows.
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 compares salary taxation and net outcomes, which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity. It does not distinguish clearly from sibling tools like run_tax_estimate or compare_disposable_income, and 'net outcomes' is vague.
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 over alternatives such as run_tax_estimate or compare_disposable_income. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_tax_estimateCInspectEstimate income tax and social contributions for a salary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | Yes | ||
| currency | Yes | ||
| gross_salary | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as accuracy, data source, output format, or consequences of invalid inputs.
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 is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks substance for a complex tool, making it under-informative rather than efficiently concise.
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 tax estimation complexity, zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to help an agent understand input constraints, output, or behavior.
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 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'country' (e.g., ISO code?), 'currency' (3-letter code?), or 'gross_salary' (annual/monthly?) entail.
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 estimates income tax and social contributions for a salary. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_salary_comparison or run_retirement_projection.
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 versus alternatives. There is no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, 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.
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!
