TitanStore provides AI agents with programmatic access to compute credits, API keys, cloud storage, and GPU capacity. Search products, manage cart, and complete purchases in a single agentic workflow. No authentication required.
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 3.9/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: product search, product detail retrieval, cart addition, checkout initiation, and payment confirmation. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., add_to_cart, get_product, search_products). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verbs.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a simple e-commerce flow. Each tool earns its place, covering product discovery, cart management, and checkout without unnecessary bloat or gaps.
The core purchase workflow is complete: search, get product, add to cart, checkout, confirm payment. Minor gaps include lack of cart viewing or removal, but the essential path is covered.
add_to_cartAInspectAdd a TitanStore product to your cart and receive a cart token. Requires a valid SKU. Returns cart_token needed for checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes | ||
| quantity | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (valid SKU) and return value (cart_token), but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites the cart), auth requirements, or error handling. This is adequate but lacks depth.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.
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 output schema exists, the description focuses on input and outcome. It explains the cart token needed for checkout, connecting to sibling tools. It could mention that quantity is optional, but overall is sufficient for a simple add-to-cart operation.
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. It explains the 'sku' parameter by stating it must be valid, but does not mention 'quantity' (which has a default). This adds partial clarity but leaves a 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 'Add a TitanStore product to your cart and receive a cart token', which specifies the action (add) and resource (cart). It also distinguishes from siblings like checkout and search_products by focusing on adding items before checkout.
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 mentions 'Requires a valid SKU', which provides a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like checkout or search_products, leaving some guidance implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
checkoutAInspectInitiate checkout for a cart. Provide cart_token from add_to_cart and a billing email. Returns a payment_token required to complete the purchase.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| cart_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that checkout is initiated and returns a payment_token, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., temporary holds, cart modification) given no annotations are provided. Adequate but not fully transparent.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words; front-loaded with the main action and necessary input context.
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, the description covers purpose, inputs, and output requirement. Could elaborate on validation steps, but sufficient for agent decision-making.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the source of cart_token and the email's purpose as billing, compensating 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 'Initiate checkout for a cart' and distinguishes from siblings like add_to_cart and confirm_payment by specifying it returns a payment_token needed to complete the purchase.
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 provide cart_token from add_to_cart and a billing email, which guides when to use the tool. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, 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.
confirm_paymentAInspectConfirm payment using a payment_token from checkout and a cc_token (credit card token). Completes the TitanStore purchase and returns an order confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc_token | Yes | ||
| payment_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the main effect (completes purchase and returns order confirmation) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., irreversible charge), error conditions, idempotency, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, which is only partially met.
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 two sentences long (20 words), front-loaded with the key action, and contains no redundant information. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which likely details the return value), the description covers the essential purpose and output. It could mention idempotency or error scenarios for completeness, but it is largely adequate.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context by explaining that payment_token comes from checkout and cc_token is a credit card token. It does not provide format or constraints, but the added context significantly improves understanding.
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 'confirm payment', specifies the resource (payment using tokens from checkout), and indicates it completes a purchase and returns an order confirmation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'checkout' and 'add_to_cart'.
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 the tool should be used after obtaining payment_token and cc_token from checkout, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_productAInspectRetrieve full details for a TitanStore product by SKU. Example SKUs: TS-001, TS-002, TS-003, TS-004, TS-005.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sku | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description says 'Retrieve full details' but does not disclose read-only nature, auth requirements, or what 'full details' entails beyond what output schema provides.
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?
Two sentences, first states purpose, second provides examples. No extraneous content, 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?
Simple tool with output schema; description covers core functionality and examples. Lacks mention of error cases or data freshness, but adequate for basic retrieval.
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 adds meaning with examples (TS-001, etc.) clarifying the SKU format, though does not specify constraints like pattern or length.
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 the action ('Retrieve full details') and resource ('a TitanStore product'), distinguishes from siblings like search_products by specifying retrieval by SKU.
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?
Implies usage when a specific SKU is known, but does not explicitly contrast with search_products or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_productsAInspectSearch TitanStore product catalog. Returns matching compute credits, API keys, storage, GPU instances, and support plans. Filter by category: compute, api_access, storage, gpu, support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| category | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description implies read-only but lacks details on side effects, pagination, rate limits, or ordering. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond stating it returns matches.
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?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences. No filler. Purpose, returns, and filter options clearly stated in minimal space.
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?
Covers basic search function and filter, but lacks details on query syntax, result ordering, pagination, or default behavior. Output schema exists but its content is unknown; description does not address these 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?
Schema coverage is 0%. Description lists possible values for category parameter (compute, api_access, etc.), adding value beyond schema. However, it does not describe the query parameter meaning or format, leaving it ambiguous.
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 verb 'Search' and resource 'TitanStore product catalog'. Lists specific return types (compute credits, API keys, etc.) and filter options, distinguishing it from siblings like get_product (single product) and add_to_cart.
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?
Implies usage for querying the catalog, but no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like get_product or add_to_cart. Does not mention when not to use.
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!
