Book, reschedule, and cancel home services (cleaning, lawn, snow) via phone OTP authentication.
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 4.1/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: quoting, ordering, job cancellation, job rescheduling, profile retrieval, service availability lookup, scheduled jobs listing, and current datetime. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as calculate_quote, cancel_job, get_profile, etc. No mixing of conventions.
8 tools is well-scoped for a home services booking server. It covers the essential customer-facing operations without being too few or excessive.
The tool set covers the core workflow: checking services, getting quotes, creating orders, managing jobs (view, cancel, reschedule). Minor gap: no tool to update profile or payment method, but the surface is largely complete for the stated purpose.
calculate_quoteAInspectCalculate an estimated price and duration for a service WITHOUT creating a booking. Use this during the quoting phase before the customer commits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | Customer city. Valid values: Ottawa, Gatineau, Toronto, Montreal, Surrey, Miami. | |
| edging | No | Lawn: include edging. | |
| garage | No | Include garage. | |
| hallway | No | Carpet: include hallway. | |
| hasPets | No | Customer has pets at home. | |
| windows | No | Include window cleaning. | |
| areaRugs | No | Carpet: number of area rugs. | |
| backyard | No | Lawn: include backyard. | |
| basement | No | Include basement. | |
| bedrooms | No | Number of bedrooms (cleaning/carpet). | |
| category | Yes | Service category. | |
| watering | No | Lawn: include watering. | |
| yardSize | No | Lawn: yard size. | |
| bathrooms | No | Number of bathrooms (cleaning). | |
| engineBay | No | Car: engine bay cleaning add-on. | |
| overgrown | No | Lawn: overgrown surcharge. | |
| staircase | No | Carpet: include staircase. | |
| tireCount | No | Tire: number of tires (default 4). | |
| baseboards | No | Include baseboards. | |
| excessDirt | No | Car: very dirty interior add-on. | |
| iceBuildup | No | Snow: include hard ice buildup. | |
| iceSalting | No | Snow: include ice salting. | |
| livingRoom | No | Include living room. | |
| ovenInside | No | Include inside oven. | |
| carsToClear | No | Snow: number of cars to clear. | |
| clayAndSeal | No | Car: clay bar & seal add-on. | |
| kitchenDeep | No | Include kitchen deep clean. | |
| lawnCleanup | No | Lawn: include cleanup. | |
| leafRemoval | No | Lawn: include leaf removal. | |
| serviceType | Yes | Specific service type within the category. | |
| vehicleType | No | Vehicle type for car detailing or tire changing. | |
| windowPanes | No | Exterior: number of window panes. | |
| drivewayType | No | Snow: driveway type. | |
| fridgeInside | No | Include inside fridge. | |
| frontWalkway | No | Snow: include front walkway. | |
| femaleCleaner | No | Prefer a female cleaner. | |
| groutCleaning | No | Include grout cleaning. | |
| windowScreens | No | Exterior: number of window screens. | |
| gutterCleaning | No | Exterior: include gutter cleaning. | |
| kitchenSurface | No | Include kitchen surface clean. | |
| petHairRemoval | No | Car: pet hair removal add-on. | |
| spotCleanDoors | No | Include spot-clean doors. | |
| spotCleanWalls | No | Include spot-clean walls. | |
| windrowClearing | No | Snow: include windrow clearing. | |
| cleaningSupplies | No | Whether ezi provides supplies (default true). | |
| soffitsAndFascia | No | Exterior: include soffits & fascia. |
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 states the tool does not create a booking, implying no side effects, but does not disclose whether it modifies any state, requires permissions, or has rate limits. The description is adequate but minimal; a more explicit statement about read-only behavior would improve it.
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 primary action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 46 parameters, high complexity, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not describe the output format (e.g., estimated price in what currency? Duration in what units? Is the estimate a range?), nor does it clarify parameter dependencies (e.g., lawn params only apply to Lawn-Care category). The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter interactions or which parameters depend on the category or serviceType, which would be helpful for such a parameter-heavy tool.
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 calculates an estimated price and duration, and explicitly notes it does not create a booking, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_order. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'price and duration' are specific and unambiguous.
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 explicitly says 'Use this during the quoting phase before the customer commits,' providing clear context for when to use it. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, the sibling tool set (especially create_order) implies the alternative for actual booking. The guidance is clear but could be more thorough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cancel_jobAInspectCancel one of the authenticated customer's upcoming jobs. Call lookup_scheduled_jobs first to get the job ID. Get explicit customer confirmation before setting confirmed to true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The job ID obtained from lookup_scheduled_jobs. | |
| confirmed | Yes | Must be true. Only set after the customer has explicitly confirmed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool cancels jobs (a mutating action), requires prior lookup for job ID, and mandates explicit customer confirmation. This is transparent for a simple cancellation tool, though it doesn't mention reversibility or 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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is stated first, followed by essential usage details. Highly concise and well-structured.
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 simple (2 required params, no output schema) and the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and a critical safety rule. It fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly, though it omits details about the response or error handling.
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%, but the description adds meaning: jobId comes from lookup_scheduled_jobs, and confirmed must be true and only after customer confirmation. This goes beyond the schema's bare 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 the tool cancels one of the authenticated customer's upcoming jobs. It specifies the verb 'cancel' and the resource 'job' with scope 'authenticated customer's upcoming', distinguishing it from siblings like reschedule_job.
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: call lookup_scheduled_jobs first to get the job ID, and obtain explicit customer confirmation before setting confirmed to true. This gives clear context on when to use the tool and a safety step, though alternatives are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_orderBInspectCreate a service order for the authenticated customer. Call calculate_quote first to get the price and recommended durationHours, then call this once the customer agrees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edging | No | ||
| garage | No | ||
| address | Yes | Service address. | |
| comment | No | Optional notes for the service provider. | |
| hallway | No | ||
| hasPets | No | ||
| windows | No | ||
| areaRugs | No | ||
| backyard | No | ||
| basement | No | ||
| bedrooms | No | ||
| category | Yes | Service category. | |
| watering | No | ||
| yardSize | No | ||
| bathrooms | No | ||
| engineBay | No | ||
| overgrown | No | ||
| staircase | No | ||
| tireCount | No | ||
| baseboards | No | ||
| excessDirt | No | ||
| iceBuildup | No | ||
| iceSalting | No | ||
| livingRoom | No | ||
| ovenInside | No | ||
| carsToClear | No | ||
| clayAndSeal | No | ||
| kitchenDeep | No | ||
| lawnCleanup | No | ||
| leafRemoval | No | ||
| serviceType | No | Specific service type. | |
| vehicleType | No | ||
| windowPanes | No | ||
| drivewayType | No | ||
| fridgeInside | No | ||
| frontWalkway | No | ||
| sendQuoteSMS | No | Send the customer an SMS summary. | |
| durationHours | No | Estimated duration in hours (0.5 increments). Use the value from calculate_quote. | |
| femaleCleaner | No | ||
| groutCleaning | No | ||
| scheduledTime | Yes | ISO 8601 datetime string (e.g. "2025-07-15T10:00:00-04:00"). Always include the timezone offset. | |
| windowScreens | No | ||
| gutterCleaning | No | ||
| kitchenSurface | No | ||
| petHairRemoval | No | ||
| spotCleanDoors | No | ||
| spotCleanWalls | No | ||
| windrowClearing | No | ||
| cleaningSupplies | No | ||
| soffitsAndFascia | No | ||
| bookIfPaymentOnFile | No | If true and a payment method is saved, immediately confirms the booking. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'create a service order' without detailing side effects, authorization needs, error states, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with 51 parameters.
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 (21 words), directly stating purpose and prerequisite. It is front-loaded and efficient without any wasted words.
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 51 parameters, nested address object, and no output schema, the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or configuration nuances. It leaves significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.
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 only 16%, leaving many parameters undocumented. The description only adds value by noting that durationHours should come from calculate_quote. This single tip does not compensate for the overall lack of parameter explanations.
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 'Create a service order' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions the authenticated customer context, which narrows scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, though the reference to calculate_quote provides some distinction.
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 sequence guidance: call calculate_quote first, then this tool after customer agreement. This helps the agent understand when to invoke it. It lacks exclusions or alternatives but is clear for the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
current_datetimeAInspectReturns the current date and time in UTC and, if a city is provided, in the local timezone. Call this before create_order to get the correct timezone offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Optional city name to get local time and offset. Valid: Ottawa, Gatineau, Toronto, Montreal, Surrey, Miami. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the output includes UTC and optional local time, but does not explicitly confirm it's read-only or describe any side effects. Adequate for a simple retrieval 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or waste.
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?
No output schema, so description should clarify return format. It states returns UTC and local time/offset, but does not specify format (e.g., ISO string, number). Adequate for a simple tool but could be more explicit.
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 description of valid city values. Description adds context by stating behavior when 'city' is provided (local timezone). Adds value beyond schema.
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 returns current date and time in UTC and optionally in a city's local timezone. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on orders, quotes, and job management.
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 advises calling before 'create_order' to get the correct timezone offset. No alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions are given, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_available_servicesAInspectReturns service categories and types available for a given postal or zip code, accounting for location coverage and seasonal availability. Call this after collecting the customer's postal code to determine what services to offer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postalCode | Yes | Customer postal or zip code (e.g. "K1A 0A1" or "90210"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers location and seasonal constraints but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 concise sentences: first states functionality, second gives usage guidance. No extraneous words.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter; description provides sufficient context. Lacks return format details but overall adequate.
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 covers the parameter fully; description adds value by explaining why postalCode is used (to check coverage and availability), going beyond the schema.
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 returns service categories and types based on postal/zip code, mentioning location coverage and seasonal availability. It distinguishes well from siblings like calculate_quote and create_order.
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 says to call after collecting postal code to determine services to offer, providing clear context. Does not include when not to use, but sibling differentiation is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_profileAInspectReturn the authenticated customer's profile: name, account ID, balance, primary address, and payment method status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation returning specific data but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. Adequate for a simple read but lacks depth.
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?
Single sentence, 20 words, clearly front-loaded with the purpose and a list of returned fields. No unnecessary information.
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 lists the fields returned (name, account ID, balance, primary address, payment method status). However, it does not indicate data types or structure. For a simple profile tool, this is reasonably complete but could be enhanced with types.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is comprehensive for zero parameters.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Return' and resource 'authenticated customer's profile' with a specific list of fields. Distinguishes from siblings that handle quotes, jobs, orders, etc.
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?
Does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple read-only profile retrieval, the context is implied but no exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_scheduled_jobsAInspectReturn the authenticated customer's upcoming scheduled jobs. Call this before rescheduling or cancelling to get the job ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states that the tool returns upcoming scheduled jobs for the authenticated customer, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or response structure. The behavioral disclosure is adequate for a simple lookup.
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 short sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the main purpose and adds a usage note, making it efficient for an agent 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. However, it does not describe the return format or specify ordering of results, which could be useful for an agent. Overall, it is mostly complete but missing minor details.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none exist. The baseline of 4 applies as the schema already fully covers 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 the action ('Return') and the resource ('the authenticated customer's upcoming scheduled jobs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cancel_job' and 'reschedule_job' by specifying it is meant to be called before those actions to obtain the job ID.
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 explicitly instructs to 'Call this before rescheduling or cancelling to get the job ID,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. The sibling tools include reschedule_job and cancel_job, so the description effectively directs the agent to use this tool as a prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reschedule_jobAInspectReschedule one of the authenticated customer's upcoming jobs to a new date and time. Call lookup_scheduled_jobs first to get the job ID. Get explicit customer confirmation before setting confirmed to true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | Yes | The job ID obtained from lookup_scheduled_jobs. | |
| confirmed | Yes | Must be true. Only set after the customer has explicitly confirmed. | |
| newScheduledTime | Yes | New ISO 8601 datetime string for the rescheduled appointment. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description covers authentication context and confirmation prerequisite. Lacks details on side effects or errors, but sufficient for basic usage.
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?
Three concise sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, prerequisite, and condition. No unnecessary words.
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?
Covers core workflow and constraints, but lacks explanation of return values. Adequate for the tool's simplicity and given no output schema.
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%, and description adds workflow context for jobId (from lookup) and confirmed (must have explicit confirmation) 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?
Clearly states verb 'Reschedule' and resource 'one of the authenticated customer's upcoming jobs', distinguishing from siblings like cancel_job.
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 lookup_scheduled_jobs first and to get customer confirmation before setting confirmed to true, providing clear sequential guidance.
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!