Chat-first business management. 22 industry templates, 14 widgets. Manage clients, sales, inventory via natural language. OAuth 2.0 authentication.
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 3.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
Each tool targets a distinct resource: configuration, tables, templates, or views. Within each resource, actions are clearly separated (create vs list, install vs list), leaving no ambiguity.
All tools follow a resource_action pattern (e.g., config_get, table_create, tables_list), but there is minor inconsistency in singular/plural usage (table_create vs tables_list vs template_install). The pattern is still predictable and readable.
Six tools cover the core configuration and management functions without being excessive. Each tool has a clear purpose, making the set well-scoped for its domain.
The set covers the main lifecycle for configurations, tables, templates, and views (get, create, list, install). Missing update/delete operations for tables and views are minor gaps that agents can likely work around, as the focus appears to be initial setup.
config_getAGet system configuration (company info, user context)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, and the description 'Get system configuration' is consistent. The description adds the types of configuration ('company info, user context'), which gives some extra context, but it does not disclose behavior like invalid keys, default values, or response structure. Given the simple read-only nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify the valid key values or return behavior. It does not, leaving a critical gap that could cause incorrect usage. The description is not complete enough for the agent to confidently use the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'key' parameter. The description only hints at possible values ('company info, user context') but does not explicitly define what keys are valid or how the key affects the output. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with the right key value.
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 'system configuration', and further specifies 'company info, user context' which distinguishes it from all sibling tools focused on tables, templates, and views. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.
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 that this tool is used to retrieve configuration data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Since siblings are all unrelated to config, the usage context is implied but not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
table_createCInspectCreate a new table with columns
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| label | Yes | ||
| columns | Yes |
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 only states the action ('create') without disclosing side effects, permissions, response format, error conditions, or constraints on the columns array. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short, though slightly more detail could be added without negatively affecting conciseness.
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 three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool 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%, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It says 'with columns' but does not explain what name, label, or columns mean, nor the expected structure of the columns array. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 and resource ('Create a new table') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tables_list, which is for listing. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing schema), and no note that tables_list should be used for viewing existing tables. Usage is only implied rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tables_listAList all tables in your business system with column info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description agrees, adding no contradiction. It adds useful detail that results include column info, but does not mention pagination, size limits, or other behavioral traits. With good annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'List', and no wasted words. It conveys the scope and extra information ('with column info') efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool, the description covers what it lists and the extra column info. There is no output schema, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate. It does not describe return shape or limits, but no alternatives are needed given the 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 input schema is empty, so there are zero parameters. Per the rubric, zero parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'tables' and scopes it to 'your business system', additionally noting 'column info' distinguishes it from sibling tools like table_create, template_list, and views_list. This makes the tool's purpose 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 is the tool for enumerating tables ('List all tables'), giving clear context that there are no exclusions. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling names (e.g., table_create, views_list) make the intended use obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
template_installBInspectInstall a business template with tables, views, relations and sample data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Template ID (e.g. crm, hotel, inventario) | |
| lang | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that installation includes 'tables, views, relations and sample data,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the installation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing objects), requires specific permissions, or is idempotent. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 front-loads the main verb and object. It communicates the core purpose without any fluff or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, error scenarios, or what happens on success. The tool installs multiple components, so more context is needed for an agent to use it safely and effectively. Without it, the description is incomplete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the parameters beyond what the JSON schema provides. The schema documents 'id' with an example but leaves 'lang' completely undocumented. Since schema description coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate for the missing 'lang' meaning, but it does not. Thus, parameter semantics are weak.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Install a business template with tables, views, relations and sample data.' The verb 'Install' combined with the resource 'business template' and its components distinguishes it from sibling tools like template_list, tables_list, and table_create. It is specific and 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 usage: if you want to install a business template, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus creating tables individually or listing templates first. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, so only implied guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
template_listAList 26 ready-to-use business templates (CRM, Hotel, Restaurant, Clinic, Dairy, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language: es, en, fr |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses the safe read-only nature, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds some context (that templates are 'ready-to-use' and lists categories) but does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or any potential limitations beyond what the annotation covers.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by useful examples. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with a readOnly annotation, a single well-documented parameter, and no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states what the tool returns (a list of 26 templates) and provides examples. Could mention the language parameter, but the schema already covers that.
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 single parameter 'lang' is fully described in the schema (Language: es, en, fr) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema carries the meaning, the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('business templates') with a specific scope ('26 ready-to-use'). It also gives examples (CRM, Hotel, etc.), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like template_install.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to see available templates) and the context is straightforward. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling name 'template_install' provides a natural contrast.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
views_listAList configured views (kanban, calendar, dashboard, chart, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds contextual detail about what constitutes a 'view' (e.g., kanban, calendar), which goes beyond the annotation without contradicting 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the purpose and scope without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, read-only list tool with an annotation and clear description, this is fully sufficient. No output schema is needed to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter info, which 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 identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('configured views'), with explicit examples of view types (kanban, calendar, dashboard, chart). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tables_list and template_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 implies when to use it: to list views. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple list operation.
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!
