MIT
mcp-docs
Server Details
FusionAuth Documentation MCP server
- 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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
B3/5.0
Tool DescriptionsC
Average 2.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'ask_fusionauth_question' is for direct Q&A about FusionAuth, while 'search_fusionauth_sources' is for searching documentation. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear action descriptors ('ask' and 'search') and a common domain identifier ('fusionauth'). The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention.
Tool Count2/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a documentation assistant. While the tools cover basic Q&A and search, the domain of FusionAuth documentation likely requires more operations (e.g., browse, summarize, or filter content) to be effective, making the toolset thin and potentially limiting for agents.
Completeness2/5
The toolset is severely incomplete for a documentation server. It lacks essential operations such as retrieving specific documentation pages, listing available resources, or handling updates. Agents will face dead ends when trying to perform common documentation tasks beyond simple questions and searches.
Available Tools
2 toolsask_fusionauth_questionAsk FusionAuth questionCInspect
Ask technical questions about FusionAuth.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The question about FusionAuth to ask |
Tool Definition Quality
C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what happens when a question is asked, whether it returns an answer, any limitations, or whether it is a read-only operation. The single sentence provides no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, making it very concise and front-loaded. However, it is also under-specified, which slightly reduces its effectiveness, but it does earn its place by stating the primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 does communicate the basic purpose, but it lacks usage guidance, expected output, and any behavioral caveats. The presence of a sibling tool without differentiation guidance makes it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers the single parameter fully with description. The tool description adds 'technical' as a qualifier, providing slight additional meaning about the type of question. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does most of the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('ask') and specific resource ('technical questions about FusionAuth'), distinguishing it from the sibling search_fusionauth_sources which searches sources. However, it doesn't specify the scope or expected behavior beyond asking questions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 search_fusionauth_sources, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The description only states a general function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_fusionauth_sourcesSearch FusionAuth sourcesCInspect
Search FusionAuth documentation sources.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query to find relevant FusionAuth documentation |
Tool Definition Quality
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explain what sources are included, whether authentication is needed, how results are returned, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, immediately stating the tool's purpose. It earns its place entirely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is still quite thin. It doesn't clarify what 'documentation sources' means, how search results are presented, or what makes this different from ask_fusionauth_question. More context would be needed for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a description for the single parameter ('The search query to find relevant FusionAuth documentation'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search FusionAuth documentation sources.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and a specific resource ('FusionAuth documentation sources'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool ask_fusionauth_question, the action is distinct enough that a user can infer the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative ask_fusionauth_question. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites. Users are left to infer when searching documentation sources is appropriate.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- MIT
- Apache 2.0
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceAn MCP authorization server implementing OAuth2/OIDC flows, supporting dynamic client registration, PKCE, consent screens, and client ID metadata documents for MCP authorization.