callable
Server Details
API for AI agents to delegate tasks to real humans.
- 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 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: submitting a task, checking its status, and reviewing it. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: submit_task, get_task_status, review_task.
Three tools is minimal but well-scoped for a focused task lifecycle (submit, poll, review). It covers the core operations without being too sparse.
The tool set covers the essential workflow: submission, status retrieval, and review. Minor gaps like listing tasks or cancellation are not critical given the automatic approval mechanism.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_task_statusARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Poll the status and retrieve the result of a previously submitted task. Returns the current status (pending, in_progress, pending_review, completed, disputed), the result payload, and any output URLs (video, screenshot). Use this in a polling loop after submit_task if no callback_url was provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The task ID returned when the task was submitted |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | No | Task result payload when completed |
| status | Yes | |
| task_id | Yes | |
| operator | No | Name of the operator who completed the task |
| output_url | No | URL to download output file (video, screenshot, etc.) |
| completed_at | No | ISO timestamp of completion |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation but provides no detail on possible status values, side effects, or idempotency. Adequate but minimal for a simple read tool.
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 a single concise sentence with no extraneous information. Every word adds value, front-loading the key action and resource.
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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It could benefit from mentioning that the result is returned in the response, but for a status check, it is sufficient.
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% for the single parameter 'task_id', which already includes a description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
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's purpose: 'Check the status and result of a previously submitted task'. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('task status/result'), and easily distinguishes from its sibling 'submit_task' which handles submission.
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 after task submission but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or preconditions are stated, leaving it to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
review_taskAIdempotentInspect
Optional. Approve or dispute a task that is in pending_review status. Use this after get_task_status reports the operator has completed the work. Approving releases the operator payout. Disputing requires a reason and a description of what is needed for acceptance; the operator is then allowed to resubmit. If you never call review_task, tasks are auto-approved after the review window expires.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The task ID returned by submit_task. | |
| decision | Yes | approve to accept the result and release payment; dispute to reject it and request a resubmission. | |
| dispute_reason | No | Required when decision = 'dispute'. What went wrong with the submission. | |
| what_is_needed | No | Required when decision = 'dispute'. What the operator must do for the submission to be accepted. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| success | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important context: approving releases payout, disputing requires reason/description, and auto-approval behavior. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies side effects.
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 a single paragraph that covers all key points without unnecessary words. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but it remains clear and efficient.
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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the workflow: prerequisites, decision options, required fields for dispute, and auto-approval fallback. No gaps in context for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that dispute_reason and what_is_needed are required for dispute decision, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema describes.
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 approves or disputes a task in 'pending_review' status, distinguishing it from sibling tools get_task_status and submit_task by specifying the exact workflow stage and action.
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 explains when to use the tool (after get_task_status confirms completion) and the consequences of each decision, including auto-approval if not called. It implicitly suggests not to use if task is not in pending_review, but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_taskBInspect
Submit a task to a real human operator via the Callable network. Use this when your agent cannot complete an action autonomously — such as making a phone call, recording a face-cam UGC video, filling a form that requires real identity, verifying an account, or posting authentically on social media. The task is charged automatically via Stripe. A human operator claims and completes it within the deadline. The result is delivered to your callback_url or retrievable via get_task_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_type | Yes | The type of human task to request. ugc_video: face-cam video recorded by a real creator ($99). phone_call: a real human makes or receives a phone call ($49). account_verification: identity or account verification with optional screenshot ($39). form_filling: forms requiring authentic human input ($39). authentic_posting: real posts on Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, or LinkedIn ($29). lead_enrichment: a human researcher finds requested fields (email, phone, LinkedIn URL, job title) for a list of leads and returns structured data ($29). | |
| callback_url | No | Webhook URL to receive a POST request with the task result when completed. Recommended for async agent workflows. If omitted, poll get_task_status instead. | |
| instructions | Yes | Task-specific structured input. Fields vary by task_type. For phone_call: phone_number, identity, objective, language, attempts. For ugc_video: script, tone, location, frame, duration, language. For form_filling: form_url, fields object. For account_verification: platform, url, credentials, what_to_verify. For authentic_posting: platform, content, scheduled_time, account_access. For lead_enrichment: leads (array of objects), fields_needed (array of strings), instructions. | |
| deadline_minutes | Yes | Time in minutes the operator has to complete the task after claiming it. Minimum 20. Recommended: 60 for phone calls, 120 for videos, 30 for form filling. | |
| payment_credential | No | Stripe Link Agent Wallet Single-use Payment Token (SPT) for fully autonomous agent payments with no human intervention required. Omit if the developer account has a saved card on file. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Current task status |
| message | No | Confirmation or error message |
| task_id | Yes | Unique identifier for the submitted task |
| estimated_completion | No | Estimated completion time based on deadline_minutes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states submission to a human, but does not mention side effects, asynchronicity, or cost implications of the payment_credential parameter.
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 with two sentences. No unnecessary words; every part contributes to the core purpose.
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 has 5 parameters including nested objects and payment details, but the description does not explain return values, workflow, or how to use the output. Lacks completeness for a submission 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 submits a task to a human operator, with a specific use case. It distinguishes from the sibling get_task_status, though not explicitly.
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 explicit guidance: 'Use this when your agent hits a wall and needs a human.' This tells when to use it, but does not mention when not to use or 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!