Check normalized portfolios against mandates and calculate allocation constraints.
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 3.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: calculate_portfolio_constraints performs deterministic arithmetic checks from normalized holdings, while evaluate_portfolio_alignment compares a clean mandate against those holdings. The descriptions explicitly warn against using one for the other's purpose, eliminating ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (calculate_*, evaluate_*) with descriptive object nouns (portfolio_constraints, portfolio_alignment). The naming is predictable and clearly signals each tool's role.
With only two tools, the server is on the thin side even for a narrowly scoped portfolio analysis domain. The tools are focused but likely require external preprocessing or additional utilities to complete full workflows, making the count borderline.
The two tools cover the core operations of constraint calculation and alignment evaluation, but there are notable gaps such as no tool for fetching or normalizing holdings/mandates, and no reporting or update capabilities. Agents can work around some gaps, but the surface feels incomplete.
calculate_portfolio_constraintsCalculate portfolio constraintsACalculate explicit portfolio constraints deterministically from normalized holdings. Use this for arithmetic checks, not for interpreting natural-language mandates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| holdings | Yes | ||
| constraints | Yes | ||
| base_currency | No | USD | |
| idempotency_key | Yes | ||
| source_warnings | No | ||
| composition_scope | No | unknown |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and destructiveHint. The description adds the notion of deterministic calculation and 'explicit' constraints, which is some extra behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like side effects or error handling, so the added value is modest.
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, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.
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 is complex (nested schemas, idempotency, multiple params), but the description is sparse. While output schema and annotations provide some context, the description does not explain key operational aspects like what 'explicit constraints' means or how to construct valid inputs beyond the schema. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete for this complexity level.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides only minimal parameter hint ('from normalized holdings'). It does not explain the complex constraints structure, idempotency_key, composition_scope, or other parameters. For a tool with 6 params and a rich schema, the description fails to compensate for the lack of 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?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate explicit portfolio constraints deterministically from normalized holdings.' It also distinguishes from interpretation tools by noting it is 'not for interpreting natural-language mandates,' which differentiates it from the sibling tool evaluate_portfolio_alignment.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for arithmetic checks, not for interpreting natural-language mandates.' This gives a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use for interpretation, so it lacks full alternative specification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
evaluate_portfolio_alignmentEvaluate portfolio alignmentBCompare a clean mandate with normalized holdings. Do not send PDF, CSV, spreadsheet, or factsheet files; extract them before calling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rules | No | ||
| mandate | No | ||
| holdings | Yes | ||
| base_currency | No | USD | |
| portfolio_name | No | Portfolio | |
| idempotency_key | Yes | ||
| source_warnings | No | ||
| composition_scope | No | unknown |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the input-format restriction but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., what happens to data, whether results are stored). Since annotations cover the basics, this is acceptable but not rich.
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, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second provides a critical input restriction. No redundancy or filler.
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 eight parameters and a nested schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'clean mandate' or 'normalized holdings' mean, how rules interact, or what the evaluation produces. While the output schema exists to describe results, the description still lacks essential context for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only references 'mandate' and 'holdings' generically. The other six parameters (rules, base_currency, portfolio_name, idempotency_key, source_warnings, composition_scope) are left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from field names.
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 a specific action: 'Compare a clean mandate with normalized holdings,' which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'calculate_portfolio_constraints,' but the verb and resources are 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?
The description provides an input precondition: 'Do not send PDF, CSV, spreadsheet, or factsheet files; extract them before calling,' which gives guidance on how to prepare inputs. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, so usage context is only implied by the tool's name.
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!
