WizerAPI Contract Intelligence
Server Details
Review contracts for risks: summary, severity-rated flags, key terms, and clause coverage.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely different purposes: analyze_contract performs contract analysis, while check_usage monitors API billing usage. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: analyze_contract and check_usage, with clear and predictable naming.
With only two tools, the server feels sparse for a service named 'Contract Intelligence'. While analyze_contract is comprehensive, the lack of additional tools (e.g., list analyses, compare contracts) makes the scope narrow.
The primary tool provides a thorough first-pass review, but the server lacks retrieval or management tools for past analyses. No CRUD beyond creation exists, which may hinder workflows requiring history or comparison.
Available Tools
2 toolsanalyze_contractFirst-pass contract reviewAInspect
First-pass review of ONE contract: plain-language summary, risk flags (with severity low|medium|high and explanations), key terms (parties, dates, term, termination notice, governing law, payment terms, auto-renewal), and presence/absence of 8 standard clauses with verbatim evidence excerpts. Input: raw contract text 100-150,000 chars (≤50,000 on the Free plan); optional title, counterparty, and document_type (msa|nda|sow|employment|lease|services|license|other). Raw text is never stored — only a content hash and the structured result. METERED — the most expensive WizerAPI operation: 12 AU + 1 AU per 1,250 chars (a 30,000-char contract ≈ 36 AU; the 150,000-char max ≈ 132 AU). Call check_usage BEFORE long documents. Re-analyzing byte-identical text in the same organization is 0 AU (cached: true). Every result reports its au_cost. Automated first-pass assistance, NOT legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| counterparty | No | ||
| document_type | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses raw text is never stored (only hash and result), metered costing structure (12 AU + 1 per 1250 chars), caching for identical text, and that results report au_cost. Also includes disclaimer 'NOT legal advice'. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is somewhat long but each sentence adds value. Front-loads the output summary, then details input and behavior. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but still efficient and clear.
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?
Comprehensively covers input constraints, costing, caching, non-storage, non-legal disclaimer, and output format. Despite no output schema, description details what the result includes (au_cost, summary, risk flags, etc.). Completely sufficient for 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 has 0% coverage, but description fully explains each parameter: text length constraints (100-150k chars, free plan limit of 50k), optional title/counterparty, and document_type enum with specific options and purpose for standard clause analysis. Goes well beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'First-pass review of ONE contract' and lists specific outputs (summary, risk flags, key terms, standard clauses). Distinguishes from sibling check_usage by mentioning it should be called before long documents and explaining costing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to call check_usage before long documents and notes caching within organization to avoid cost. Implicitly indicates this is for initial automated assessment, not legal advice. Could be more direct about when not to use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_usageCheck usage & quotaAInspect
Check the current billing period usage for YOUR WizerAPI organization: plan, included AU, used AU, remaining AU, overage so far, and the per-minute rate limit. Costs 0 AU and is never blocked by the session budget. Call this BEFORE large metered jobs (theme extraction over many reviews, long contracts) to confirm quota headroom, and AFTER quota errors to see where you stand.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is free (0 AU) and never blocked, and lists all returned data fields (plan, included AU, used AU, etc.), ensuring full 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 three sentences, all front-loaded with key information. Every sentence serves a purpose: what it does, cost/blocking info, and when to use it. 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?
Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's return values. Given zero parameters and a single sibling tool, the description is comprehensive and leaves no 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?
There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It compensates by explaining the output, adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Check' and resource 'current billing period usage', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from the sibling 'analyze_contract' by focusing on billing usage rather than contract analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises when to call the tool: before large metered jobs and after quota errors. It also highlights that it costs 0 AU and is never blocked, providing clear usage context and alternatives.
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!