Agent-to-business commerce sandbox: intents, offers, bookings. Demo data, ed25519-signed calls.
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 3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: agent registration, intent creation, offer listing, hold placement, booking confirmation, and approval finalization. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (e.g., list_offers, hold_slot, approve_pending). The pattern is uniform across the entire set.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a booking sandbox. Each tool covers a necessary step in the workflow, and the count is within the ideal range.
The core lifecycle (register → intent → offers → hold → booking → approval) is covered. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of cancellation or rejection operations, but these are not critical for a sandbox.
approve_pendingCInspectFinalize a pending booking approval. payload = { approval_id }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | ||
| payload | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'finalize' with no mention of side effects, reversibility, or state changes, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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, getting to the point immediately.
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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the primary action and payload structure, omitting return behavior, prerequisites, and any side-effect warnings, making it incomplete for safe 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?
The description adds meaning to the payload parameter by specifying the expected structure ({ approval_id }), which is absent from the schema. However, the other four parameters (agent_id, nonce, timestamp, signature) remain unexplained, and schema coverage is 0%.
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 'finalize' with the resource 'pending booking approval', clearly indicating the action. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like confirm_booking, but the intent is clear.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer suitability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
confirm_bookingAInspectConfirm a hold into a booking (buyer signature = the envelope signature). payload = { hold_id }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | ||
| payload | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that the buyer signature equals the envelope signature and that the payload should contain hold_id. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, irreversible, or requires prior hold ownership, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and adding essential detail about the payload. No filler or 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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should explain more about the request-return flow, error handling, or prerequisites. It describes the action and payload but omits what the response looks like, whether the hold is deleted after confirmation, or any failure conditions. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.
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 clarifies the payload parameter (should be { hold_id }) and implicitly explains the signature parameter via the envelope signature reference. With 0% schema coverage, this is helpful but incomplete: agent_id, nonce, and timestamp are left unexplained, likely standard protocol fields but still undocumented.
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 ('Confirm') and the resource ('a hold into a booking'), and clarifies that the buyer signature is the envelope signature. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hold_slot (which creates a hold) and approve_pending (which may approve without converting).
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?
It is clear that this tool is used to convert an existing hold into a booking, providing a distinct use case from hold_slot. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
hold_slotCInspectPlace a hold on an offer's slot. payload = { offer_id }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | ||
| payload | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without clarifying what placing a hold entails (e.g., expiration, reversibility, side effects, authentication requirements). The payload hint is minimal and doesn't compensate for the lack of detail.
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 concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential details, so while it is structurally efficient, it is not fully adequate. The two-sentence format is appropriate for a simple tool but under-serves a 5-parameter schema.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fails to provide adequate context. It doesn't explain the auth fields, when to use the hold action, what happens on success, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'confirm_booking' and 'send_intent'. The description is incomplete for effective tool selection and 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 description coverage is 0%, and only the payload parameter is described (as { offer_id }). The remaining four parameters (agent_id, nonce, timestamp, signature) are unexplained, leaving most of the schema semantically opaque. The payload hint adds some value but covers only one of five parameters.
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 ('Place a hold') and the resource ('an offer's slot'), which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling 'confirm_booking' by implying a pre-booking step, though it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives.
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 like 'confirm_booking' or 'list_offers'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the typical flow (e.g., hold before confirm), so the agent receives no contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_offersBInspectList an intent's offers. payload = { intent_id }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | ||
| payload | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether pagination applies, or any authentication requirements beyond the schema's auth parameters. The description only restates the tool's function without adding contextual detail.
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 just two short sentences: 'List an intent's offers. payload = { intent_id }.' It is extremely concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word adds value. No verbose or redundant language is present.
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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It omits what the response looks like, how offers are structured, and any behavioral specifics like rate limits or error handling. The description provides only the bare minimum for understanding the tool's core function.
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 zero description coverage for its 5 parameters, so the description's note 'payload = { intent_id }' adds crucial meaning to the payload parameter. However, it does not explain the other four parameters (agent_id, nonce, timestamp, signature), which are likely standard auth fields but are left undocumented. The description partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 'List an intent's offers' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the action-oriented sibling tools (approve_pending, confirm_booking, etc.) by being a read-only operation. The inclusion of the payload format further clarifies the scope.
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 by indicating that it lists offers for an intent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The contrast with sibling tools is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
register_agentCInspectRegister a buyer agent (proof-of-possession over the submitted public_key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | ||
| payload | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions proof-of-possession but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether registration is permanent), security requirements, or what happens on invalid input. The reference to a non-existent public_key parameter further muddies the behavior.
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 unnecessary words, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified, lacking critical parameter and usage context, so it doesn't fully earn its place as an effective 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?
The tool has 5 parameters, 4 required, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides minimal context, leaving the agent to infer how to construct nonce, timestamp, and signature, and what constitutes valid proof-of-possession. It also does not differentiate when to use this tool among siblings.
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 fails to explain any of the required parameters (agent_id, nonce, timestamp, signature). It only mentions 'public_key', which is not in the schema, offering no meaningful parameter guidance and potentially misleading the agent.
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 'Register' and identifies the resource as a 'buyer agent', with a distinctive proof-of-possession element that helps distinguish it from sibling tools. However, it references a 'public_key' that is not present in the input schema, creating slight ambiguity.
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 lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or context about how registration fits into the broader workflow of the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
send_intentCInspectCreate a buyer intent. payload = a structured Intent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | ||
| payload | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| timestamp | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives no indication of side effects, authentication requirements, whether this is a one-way submission, or what happens after creation. The phrase 'Create a buyer intent' is purely actional and reveals no behavioral traits.
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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the payload clarification is a useful addition. Every word earns 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?
The description is grossly incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters, 4 required, no annotations, and no output schema. It fails to explain why nonce, timestamp, and signature are needed, what a buyer intent represents, or what the response will be. Much more context is required for an agent to safely invoke this 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 0%, and the description partially compensates by stating 'payload = a structured Intent', offering a type hint for one parameter. However, required fields like agent_id, nonce, timestamp, and signature remain completely unexplained, leaving most parameters underspecified.
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 action with 'Create a buyer intent', using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like hold_slot or confirm_booking, though it does not elaborate on the eventual purpose or lifecycle of the intent.
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 choose this tool over alternatives. The description only says 'Create a buyer intent' without mentioning any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like list_offers or approve_pending.
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!
