Synapze — Financial Intermediary MCP
Server Details
Connect AI agents to licensed financial intermediaries in France: insurance, credit, wealth.
- 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 4.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: search brokers, get broker details, list products, and generate quotes. No overlap in functionality.
All tools use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming (find_broker, get_broker_info, get_products, get_quote), making the pattern predictable and easy to follow.
With only 4 tools, the set is focused and covers the core workflow (search, info, products, quotes). While minimal, it leaves no unnecessary clutter. Could be expanded with document generation or claims tools, but current scope is reasonable.
The tools cover broker discovery, product details, and quoting, which are central. However, the description references document generation (PDF, PPTX) that is not provided, leaving a notable gap in the workflow.
Available Tools
4 toolsfind_brokerARead-onlyInspect
Trouver un courtier en assurance / Find a licensed insurance broker in France. Recherche par produit (auto, moto, MRH/habitation, RC Pro, protection juridique, épargne, assurance vie, PER), ville et langue. Search by product type, city, and language. Returns broker name, specialties, DDA compliance status, and connection endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City or zone in France (e.g. 'paris', 'lyon', 'marseille') | |
| ticket | No | Project amount in EUR (for routing large-ticket cases) | |
| product | Yes | Insurance product type: auto, moto, mrh, rc_pro, protection_juridique, epargne, assurance_vie, per | |
| language | No | Preferred language: fr, en | fr |
| sub_specialty | No | Sub-specialty niche within the product (e.g. 'architectes', 'sci_is', 'dirigeants') |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint: true) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the output: 'broker name, specialties, DDA compliance status, and connection endpoint.' This clarifies what the agent can expect without contradicting annotations. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are disclosed, but the core behavior is 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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences (bilingual) front-loading the verb/resource, then search criteria, then output. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy. Perfectly sized for quick parsing.
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 5 parameters (1 required), 100% schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a search tool. It explains the purpose, search criteria, and return values. It does not cover edge cases (e.g., no results) or performance, but for a finder tool this is adequate. The presence of siblings is noted, though no usage guidance is given.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the tool's purpose (French insurance broker search) and highlighting the main parameters (product, city, language) in a user-friendly way. It also notes the possible product values, complementing the schema. This extra context justifies a score above baseline.
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 ('Trouver un courtier en assurance / Find a licensed insurance broker in France') and the resource (insurance broker). It lists specific search criteria (product type, city, language) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_broker_info (likely for a specific broker) and get_products (listing products). The verb 'find' and the resource 'broker' are explicit.
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 searching brokers by product, city, and language but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_broker_info or get_products. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_broker_infoARead-onlyInspect
Informations et branding du courtier / Broker branding and identity. Returns: company name, logo URL, brand color (#hex), address, postal code, phone, ORIAS number, website, specialties, and DDA compliance status. ALWAYS call this before generating any document (PDF, PPTX, comparison, advisory note) to brand it with the broker's logo, color, name, address, and ORIAS number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| broker_code | No | Broker code returned by find_broker. Optional in broker-authenticated mode. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing the returned fields and the prerequisite role for document generation. 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?
Concise, front-loaded with purpose, and efficient. 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?
Comprehensive for a simple tool with one optional parameter: returns are fully listed, usage context is clear, and no output schema is needed.
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%, and the description adds extra context: 'Broker code returned by find_broker' and 'Optional in broker-authenticated mode,' enriching the parameter semantics.
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 returns broker branding and identity information, listing specific fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings (find_broker, get_products, get_quote) by focusing on branding details.
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 instructs 'ALWAYS call this before generating any document' and lists document types, providing strong when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_productsARead-onlyInspect
Catalogue produits assurance / List insurance products with eligibility criteria, coverage details, and indicative pricing. A category is required. Categories: auto, moto, mrh (habitation/home), rc_pro (responsabilité civile/professional liability), protection_juridique (legal), epargne (savings), assurance_vie (life savings), per (retirement savings).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Product category filter: auto, moto, mrh, rc_pro, protection_juridique, epargne, assurance_vie, per | |
| broker_code | No | Broker code returned by find_broker. Optional in broker-authenticated mode. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral disclosure is moderate. It adds that the tool returns eligibility criteria, coverage details, and pricing, but does not mention pagination, authentication specifics, or performance characteristics.
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: two sentences that front-load the main purpose and list categories efficiently. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is 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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (list of products with eligibility, coverage, pricing). It covers the required category filter. It could mention if pagination or limits exist, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple listing 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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description rephrases the category list and broker_code guidance but adds no new information. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides no extra semantic 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 tool lists insurance products with eligibility, coverage, and pricing. It distinguishes from sibling tools (find_broker, get_quote) by focusing on product catalog. The minor inconsistency of stating category is required while schema doesn't enforce it is a schema issue, not a description problem.
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 tells when to use: to get insurance products for a specific category. It lists available categories but does not explicitly say when not to use or compare with alternatives like get_quote for pricing. The context of sibling tools provides some implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_quoteARead-onlyInspect
Tarification assurance en temps réel / Generate real insurance quotes from partner APIs. Devis auto, moto, habitation (MRH), RC Pro, protection juridique, épargne, assurance vie, PER. Returns monthly prices per product and level. No PII stored or returned.
IMPORTANT — birth_date + postal_code are REQUIRED for all products. Use product_data for product-specific information. Call get_products first to see quoteRequirements.guidance for each product — it tells you exactly what to ask the client.
product_data examples by product_type: • auto / moto: {marque, modele, annee, immatriculation, energie, puissance_fiscale, km_annuel, usage, stationnement, date_permis, bonus_malus, sinistres_3ans, formule: tiers/tiers_etendu/tous_risques} • mrh: {type_logement: appartement/maison, statut_occupant: proprietaire/locataire/pno, surface, nb_pieces, etage, annee_construction, alarme, valeur_mobilier} • rc_pro: {activite, code_naf, nb_salaries, ca_annuel} • protection_juridique (pj): {domaine, nb_salaries} • per: {revenus_annuels, tmi, versement_initial, versement_mensuel, profil_risque: prudent/equilibre/dynamique} • assurance_vie: {versement_initial, versement_mensuel, profil_risque, horizon_placement_annees}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| budget | No | Client's monthly budget in euros (e.g. 80). Results sorted by proximity to budget. | |
| gender | No | Gender: M or F | |
| children | No | Children details for family coverage | |
| show_all | No | Return ALL quotes instead of top 5. Use only when client asks for more options. | |
| birth_date | Yes | Client birth date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g. '1988-05-15') | |
| has_spouse | No | Whether the client has a spouse/partner to cover | |
| broker_code | No | Broker code returned by find_broker. Optional in broker-authenticated mode. | |
| postal_code | No | French postal code (e.g. '75008', '92150'). Required for all products. | |
| product_data | No | Product-specific data object. Fields depend on product_type — see description above for examples per product. Call get_products first to see quoteRequirements.guidance for the exact fields to collect. | |
| product_type | Yes | Product type: auto, moto, mrh, rc_pro, protection_juridique (pj), epargne, assurance_vie, per | |
| spouse_birth_date | No | Spouse birth date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| number_of_children | No | Number of children to cover |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; description adds 'No PII stored or returned' which reinforces safety. No contradiction between description and 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?
Front-loaded with purpose and key requirements, but fairly long due to product_data examples. Well-structured with clear sections. Could be slightly more concise, but information density is high.
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 tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, description covers required fields, product_data structures, and references to get_products. Mentions return value (monthly prices). Adequate completeness for a complex 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 has 100% coverage, but description goes beyond by detailing required fields (birth_date, postal_code) and providing extensive examples for product_data per product_type. This adds significant meaning beyond schema descriptions.
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 clearly states 'Generate real insurance quotes from partner APIs' and lists product types, distinguishing the tool from siblings like get_products (which provides product requirements) and find_broker (which finds brokers).
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 instructs to call get_products first to see quoteRequirements.guidance, and states that birth_date and postal_code are required. Provides examples of product_data per product_type, guiding usage. Does not explicitly state 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.
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!