Test-network group buying through nine buyer and seller tools.
Co-sign a test-network pool outcome to build portable completion evidence. EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signature | Yes | ||
| attestation | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it co-signs and builds evidence, but does not clarify potential side effects or state changes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by warnings. Every sentence serves a clear function, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary length.
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 nested attestation object and multiple constraints, the description lacks essential usage context, parameter explanation, and outcome details. The experimental and disclaimer text does not compensate for the missing operational guidance.
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 description does not explain the two required parameters, 'attestation' and 'signature'. The schema provides detailed structure and enum values, but the description adds no semantic meaning, leaving parameter roles and relationships underspecified.
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 identifies the action ('co-sign') and the object ('test-network pool outcome'), and explains the purpose ('build portable completion evidence'). It is specific enough to distinguish the tool's intent, though it does not detail the exact parameters.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It includes experimental and safety warnings, but does not explain conditions or context that would indicate this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check once whether a posted purchase intent has joined a better-priced forming pool. EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intentId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes extensive risk warnings: 'EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.' These go beyond the annotations and clearly communicate the tool's non-production, experimental nature. No contradictions with 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?
The core instruction is concise and front-loaded. The long all-caps risk disclaimer is verbose but directly relevant given the experimental nature of the tool; it does not dilute the primary 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 description explains the purpose but omits what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a status object, or match details). Since there is no output schema, the absence of any return-value description leaves the tool's behavior incomplete for an agent.
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 provides only a regex pattern for intentId with no description. The description mentions 'posted purchase intent,' which gives some meaning to the parameter, but does not explain how to obtain the ID, its expected format beyond the pattern, or any related concepts.
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 primary action: checking once whether a posted purchase intent has joined a better-priced forming pool. It names the resource and action specifically, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from related sibling tools like get_match_status.
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 phrase 'Check once' provides some guidance on polling frequency, but there is no explicit instruction about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as caravan_get_match_status or caravan_commit. No usage context or conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Sign or bond a test-network purchase commitment without exposing a private key to the server. EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bond | No | ||
| mode | Yes | ||
| publish | No | ||
| signature | Yes | ||
| commitment | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some behavioral context: it states that private keys are not exposed to the server, and it warns that this is experimental and test-only. These are not present in the annotations, which already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. However, the description doesn't disclose what side effects occur, such as on-chain transactions or state changes. Given the annotations cover the destructive nature, the description adds a bit but not enough for a higher score.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a string of disclaimers in all caps, which are repetitive but not excessively long. The structure is acceptable, though the disclaimers could be condensed. Overall, it's concise and to the point.
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?
This is a complex tool with nested objects and 5 parameters, yet the description only gives a high-level purpose and warnings. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the meaning of commitment, signature, bond, or publish. An agent would lack critical information about how to construct the parameters, what constitutes a valid commitment, or what the tool returns. This is severely incomplete for such a complex 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?
The description provides zero information about the parameters (commitment, signature, bond, publish, mode). It only implicitly references the mode via 'sign or bond'. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. An agent would have to infer meaning from the schema alone, which is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.
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: 'Sign or bond a test-network purchase commitment'. It specifies the resource (purchase commitment) and the two modes (sign or bond). It also differentiates from siblings by focusing on commitment creation, which is distinct from other tools like caravan_attest or caravan_check_pools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it's not a perfect 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description only includes disclaimers about test network, but doesn't explain the conditions under which one should sign versus bond, or when to choose this tool over others. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Poll a purchase intent until it matches or returns explainable failure reasons. EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intentId | Yes | ||
| intervalMs | No | ||
| maxAttempts | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds a behavioral detail: it polls until a match or explainable failure, which is not contradictory to the annotations. The excessive experimental disclaimers do not contradict but add noise.
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 functional description is compact, but it is immediately followed by a long all-caps disclaimer that dominates the text. This dilutes the core message and makes the description less concise than it could be.
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?
With no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., match details or failure reasons). It also does not describe how the polling parameters (intervalMs, maxAttempts) shape the behavior. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent.
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 has zero description coverage for its three parameters (intentId, intervalMs, maxAttempts). The tool description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meanings. This is a severe 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 tool's purpose: poll a purchase intent until it matches or returns failure reasons. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like caravan_post_intent or caravan_pay_reveal by focusing on retrieval/status checking rather than creating or committing.
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 gives a functional usage context ('Poll a purchase intent'), but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over other siblings or what conditions would make it inappropriate. No alternative tools are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use a Phase-0 payment rail to reveal the matched test-network manifest. EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| poolId | No | ||
| payment | Yes | ||
| manifestId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes important risk disclaimers about being experimental/test-network-only, but it does not explain actual side effects such as consuming payment, making an irreversible payment, or any destructive impact. The annotations already flag destructive/read-only traits, but the description adds no detail about what is destroyed or consumed.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by concise risk disclaimers. There is no unnecessary elaboration or redundant wording.
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 description gives a high-level purpose and risk warning, but lacks essential context such as parameter semantics, what the output will be, and when to choose this over related sibling tools. The absence of an output schema and the detailed nested payment object make the description incomplete.
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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain any parameters. The poolId vs manifestId one-of relationship and the payment object with rail and paymentSignature are entirely unexplained.
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 action ('reveal the matched test-network manifest') via a Phase-0 payment rail, and the title reinforces the 'pay to reveal' purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like caravan_commit or caravan_get_match_status.
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 this should be used when a match exists and a payment rail is needed to reveal the manifest, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Post test-network demand so Caravan can aggregate it into a stronger group-buy. EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| proof | Yes | ||
| intent | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Post' action aligns. It adds minimal context about aggregation but does not disclose side effects, persistence, or network behavior beyond the annotation baseline.
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 core purpose sentence is concise, but the appended legal disclaimer ('EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY ...') is verbose and unrelated to tool invocation, adding clutter without functional guidance.
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 complex nested schema (window object, settlementPrefs array, proof pattern), the description is severely under-specified. It lacks any explanation of validation rules, format expectations, or how the intent will be used, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct request.
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 has zero description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of the 'intent' object or 'proof' field. An agent cannot infer the meaning of parameters like productId, unitCeiling, or settlementPrefs from the description alone.
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: 'Post test-network demand so Caravan can aggregate it into a stronger group-buy.' It specifies the action (posting demand) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like caravan_post_offer, which posts supply.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as caravan_post_offer. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts that would make this tool the preferred choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Publish test-network quantity tiers so verified capacity can compete for aggregated demand. EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offer | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds only legal disclaimers, not behavioral details such as side effects, success/failure outcomes, or interaction with other tools. No contradiction with 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?
The core sentence is concise, but a large portion of the description is repetitive legal disclaimers. The structure is acceptable, though the disclaimers could be considered noise.
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 complexity of the nested offer schema, the description is severely insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of quantity tiers, the meaning of 'verified capacity', or any operational context, leaving agents without necessary information to invoke the 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%. The single 'offer' parameter is a complex nested object with many fields, but the description provides no explanation of what these fields represent or how they should be populated.
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 verb (publish) and an object (quantity tiers), but 'test-network' and 'aggregated demand' are vague. The title 'Post seller offer' clarifies intent, but the description alone does not clearly define the 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The disclaimers about experimental/test network do not explain selection criteria or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Compare privacy-safe historical discounts before deciding whether to join a pool. EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| productId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important caveats about being experimental, test-network-only, and not involving real funds, which improves transparency beyond the 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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The disclaimers are necessary given the tool's experimental and non-financial nature, and there is no superfluous content.
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 description covers the overall purpose and important warnings, but omits parameter semantics and any indication of the output shape. Since there is no output schema, these omissions leave the agent with meaningful gaps in understanding how to call and interpret the 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?
None of the three parameters (productId, limit, cursor) are described in the schema or the description. The agent cannot reliably infer their meaning or formatting, especially the pagination semantics of limit and cursor.
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 identifies the action ('compare historical discounts') and the resource ('clearing-price history'), with a use context ('before deciding whether to join a pool'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is distinct enough to avoid confusion.
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 gives useful context about when to use the tool: before deciding whether to join a pool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some implicit inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Link a seller AgentCard and HTTPS domain proof before offering capacity. EXPERIMENTAL — TEST NETWORK ONLY — NOT A FINANCIAL PRODUCT OR SERVICE — NO REAL FUNDS — AS IS, NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY — USE AT YOUR OWN RISK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | Yes | ||
| domainOrigin | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no side-effect or state-change details but does include an experimental/no-financial-product disclaimer. No contradiction with 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?
The core description is one concise sentence, but the long all-caps disclaimer is boilerplate that overlaps with the schema field constraint and adds noise.
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 complex nested object and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return behavior, success/failure semantics, or how the nested card fields should be populated, leaving important context missing.
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%, and the description only loosely maps 'card' and 'domainOrigin'. The nested card object has many required fields with no parameter-level explanation, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic detail.
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 clear verb and resource: link a seller AgentCard and HTTPS domain proof. This distinguishes it from the sibling trading/payment tools, though 'before offering capacity' adds a slight sequencing ambiguity.
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 implies this is a prerequisite step ('before offering capacity'), giving some contextual guidance, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it relates to the alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
caravan_attestcaravan_check_poolscaravan_commitcaravan_get_match_statuscaravan_pay_revealcaravan_post_intentcaravan_post_offercaravan_price_historycaravan_seller_onboardClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Six deterministic value tools for shopping and procurement agents.
Agentic group buying. Agents pool demand into chains that clear at a group price. Waitlist is open.
Agentic commerce network: discover sellers and products, negotiate, and pay USDC on Base via x402.
Open Base Sepolia testnet exchange for autonomous buyer and seller agents, with signed receipts.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: posting intents/offers, committing, checking pools, polling match status, paying/revealing, attesting, and seller onboarding. No two tools overlap in functionality, and even similar-sounding ones (check_pools vs. get_match_status) target different objects (pools vs. intents).
All tools follow the same caravan_verb_noun pattern with snake_case, making the naming fully consistent and predictable. The prefix also clearly ties tools to the server.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a marketplace/aggregation service. It covers the core workflow without being sparse or overwhelming, fitting the recommended 3-15 range.
The tools cover the main lifecycle: posting intents and offers, committing, matching, payment, attestation, and seller onboarding. However, there is no explicit cancel/withdraw tool for intents or offers, which is a minor gap in full lifecycle management.
