Runik AI
Server Details
Chat-first business management. 22 industry templates, 14 widgets. Manage clients, sales, inventory via natural language. OAuth 2.0 authentication.
- 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 3.4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
Each tool targets a distinct resource: config, tables, templates, and views. No two tools have overlapping purposes, making selection unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., config_get, table_create, views_list) using snake_case throughout.
Six tools is well within the ideal range for a business system setup server, covering essential functions without being excessive or sparse.
The domain of business system management lacks CRUD operations for tables and views (no update/delete), and no data manipulation tools for records, which are notable gaps.
Available Tools
6 toolsconfig_getBRead-onlyInspect
Get system configuration (company info, user context)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds that it returns system configuration, but lacks details on behavior for invalid keys or response 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?
One short sentence efficiently conveying the tool's purpose with no redundant words. Front-loaded with key action 'Get'.
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 one-parameter tool without output schema, the description gives a general idea but lacks specifics on return value structure and valid key options. It is minimally adequate but could be more comprehensive.
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 only parameter 'key' has 0% coverage in the schema. The description adds examples like 'company info' and 'user context', hinting at possible values, but does not specify valid keys or format, leaving the agent to infer.
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 states 'Get system configuration' with examples 'company info, user context', clearly indicating the purpose of retrieving configuration data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like table_create and views_list which handle 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools cover different domains, the description does not mention any specific conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
table_createCInspect
Create a new table with columns
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| label | Yes | ||
| columns | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states it creates a table with columns, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, uniqueness constraints, or what happens if columns are incorrectly specified.
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?
Description is concise (one sentence) but lacks structure and important details. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity undermines clarity.
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 and three required parameters (one complex array), the description fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the expected format of the 'columns' parameter. Incomplete for proper tool invocation.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'columns' but provides no structure or constraints (e.g., column types, required fields). Parameter names (name, label, columns) are not explained.
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 'Create a new table with columns', which is a specific verb+resource but lacks context about where the table is created (e.g., in a database, workspace). It distinguishes from siblings (list, config, template tools) but 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or related tools like tables_list or template_install.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tables_listARead-onlyInspect
List all tables in your business system with column info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'with column info' but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. The information is consistent and adds some value beyond annotations.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without 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?
The description adequately covers the tool's function for a simple list operation with no parameters and an output that includes column info. It could benefit from specifying what column info entails, but it is sufficient 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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information.
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 all tables in the business system with column info, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like table_create or template_list by focusing on tables and listing.
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 exploring tables but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, with zero parameters, the usage is straightforward and unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
template_installBInspect
Install 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies creation of multiple objects and data, but lacks details on whether it is destructive, requires authentication, or is idempotent. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, which it does not meet.
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, clear sentence that front-loads the main purpose. No extraneous content, though it could benefit from structured formatting for parameters.
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 complexity of installing a template (multiple artifacts, potential side effects), the description is too brief. It omits details on return values, permissions, and consequences, making it incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's impact.
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 id parameter has a description in the schema that gives examples (e.g., crm, hotel, inventario), adding meaning. However, the lang parameter lacks a schema description and is not explained in the tool description, leaving 50% of parameters undocumented. The description partially compensates for id but not for lang.
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 (Install) and the resource (business template), and lists specific components (tables, views, relations, sample data). It distinguishes from siblings like template_list (listing) and table_create (single table creation) by focusing on installation of a full template.
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 alternatives. Sibling tools like template_list and table_create are related, but the description does not provide context for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
template_listARead-onlyInspect
List 26 ready-to-use business templates (CRM, Hotel, Restaurant, Clinic, Dairy, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language: es, en, fr |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that this is a listing operation. It adds value by specifying the exact count (26) and categories, but does not disclose other behaviors like authentication needs or return format. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 directly states the action and scope. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the key information (action, count, examples). No extraneous content.
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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the core functionality. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of template names, IDs) which would be helpful for an agent to interpret the output. It is complete enough for basic use but lacks detail.
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%, with the lang parameter fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 clearly states the tool lists 26 ready-to-use business templates with specific examples (CRM, Hotel, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like template_install (install) and tables_list (list tables). The verb 'List' combined with the resource 'business templates' 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., template_install, config_get). It does not include when-not-to-use conditions or mention the sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
views_listARead-onlyInspect
List configured views (kanban, calendar, dashboard, chart, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the types of views listed. No additional behavioral traits are needed for this simple read operation.
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 with no unnecessary words, well 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?
The description provides examples of view types but does not specify the output format or structure. For a simple list tool, it is nearly complete.
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 the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline 4 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 clearly states it lists configured views and gives examples like kanban, calendar, dashboard, chart, distinguishing it from siblings 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 usage for listing views but does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools or provide exclusions.
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!