Ezi Home Services
Server Details
Book, reschedule, and cancel home services (cleaning, lawn, snow) via phone OTP authentication.
- 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 4.1/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
Each tool targets a distinct action or query: quoting, ordering, profile, scheduling, rescheduling, cancellation, services lookup, and current time. No overlaps exist.
All tools use snake_case and most follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., calculate_quote, cancel_job). The exception is current_datetime, which uses an adjective_noun form but remains descriptive.
8 tools cover the full booking lifecycle for home services: discovery, quoting, ordering, scheduling, and cancellation. The count is tight and focused.
Core workflows are covered: service discovery, quote, order, job management. Minor gaps include lack of job detail retrieval (beyond listing) and profile update, but agents can still complete primary tasks.
Available Tools
8 toolscalculate_quoteAInspect
Calculate 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of not creating a booking, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or validation behavior. 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 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no wasted words. Very concise yet informative.
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 (46 parameters), the description only provides high-level purpose. No guidance on parameter combination or output format (no output schema). Sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for effective use.
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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond schema descriptions. For a tool with 46 parameters, some grouping or usage hints would improve value.
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 'Calculate an estimated price and duration for a service WITHOUT creating a booking', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_order by emphasizing the no-booking aspect.
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 'Use this during the quoting phase before the customer commits', providing clear context. It contrasts with booking creation but does not explicitly list alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cancel_jobAInspect
Cancel 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the confirmation requirement and prerequisite, which is adequate for a simple cancellation tool. However, no annotations exist and it does not mention side effects or reversibility.
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 with no redundant words, front-loaded with 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?
Missing return value description and details on cancellation timing (immediate vs queued). For a simple tool with 2 params, it is functional but not fully complete.
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 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces the confirmed parameter's requirement but adds minimal additional meaning 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 verb 'cancel' and resource 'one of the authenticated customer's upcoming jobs', distinguishing it from siblings like lookup_scheduled_jobs and 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?
Explicitly instructs to call lookup_scheduled_jobs first to get the job ID, and to get explicit customer confirmation before setting confirmed to true, providing clear when-to-use and prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_orderAInspect
Create 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
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 implies a write operation and mentions 'authenticated customer' indicating auth requirements. However, it doesn't describe side effects like charges or confirmation behavior.
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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded clear purpose, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.
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, 16% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too short. It fails to explain many required parameters, return values, error scenarios, or authentication 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?
Schema description coverage is only 16%, so the description should compensate. It only adds meaning for durationHours (use from calculate_quote). The other 50 parameters lack semantic clarification beyond what the schema provides.
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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'service order' for the 'authenticated customer'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_quote by specifying a prerequisite workflow.
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 calculate_quote first to get price and durationHours, then call this tool after customer agrees. Provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
current_datetimeAInspect
Returns 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the main behavior: returning UTC and optional local time. While it could mention that the tool is read-only and has no side effects, the behavior is sufficiently clear for a simple datetime retrieval.
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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a usage hint. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 lacks details about the return format (e.g., ISO 8601 string, timestamp), which could lead to ambiguity. Since no output schema is provided, the description should clarify the format for completeness.
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%, and the schema already describes the 'city' parameter with valid options. The description adds context about when the city is used (to get local time), but does not add significant new meaning 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 uses a specific verb 'returns' and clearly states the resource: current date and time in UTC and optionally local time. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique purpose.
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 advises calling this tool before 'create_order' to get the correct timezone offset, providing clear context for usage. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_available_servicesAInspect
Returns 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"). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that results account for location coverage and seasonal availability, offering some behavioral insight. Lacks details on error states or idempotency but sufficient 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?
Two efficient sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with the main action and followed by usage instruction.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It covers what, when, and hints at logic, leaving no critical gaps.
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% for the single parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that postal code is used to determine location and seasonal availability, giving context to the parameter.
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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'service categories and types' for a given postal/zip code. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_quote or create_order by specifying the context of determining available services.
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 states when to call: 'after collecting the customer's postal code to determine what services to offer.' Provides clear context but does not mention alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_profileBInspect
Return the authenticated customer's profile: name, account ID, balance, primary address, and payment method status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only, safe, or idempotent. With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements or side effects, but it does not.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that conveys the essential information without extraneous text. It is front-loaded with the verb 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?
For a simple zero-parameter retrieval tool, the description is mostly complete. It covers the output composition but omits potential error conditions or limitations (e.g., profile not found).
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?
Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage by default). The description adds meaning by listing the fields returned in the profile, which helps the agent understand the output despite no input 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?
The description clearly states it returns the authenticated customer's profile with specific fields (name, account ID, balance, primary address, payment method status). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from siblings.
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 alternatives (e.g., other customer-related endpoints). The description does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_scheduled_jobsAInspect
Return the authenticated customer's upcoming scheduled jobs. Call this before rescheduling or cancelling to get the job ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description correctly indicates it's a read-only lookup returning upcoming jobs. Could elaborate on 'upcoming' definition but adequate.
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 primary action, no redundant words. Highly concise and 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 no output schema, description could detail return structure (e.g., job ID, date). However, for a simple list tool it's largely complete.
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; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info but not needed. Baseline score of 4 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?
Description clearly states 'Return the authenticated customer's upcoming scheduled jobs' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by noting its role in obtaining job ID for reschedulings/cancellations.
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 'before rescheduling or cancelling to get the job ID', providing clear context and referencing alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reschedule_jobAInspect
Reschedule 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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It specifies that rescheduling requires customer confirmation and prior job lookup, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens to the original time slot) or whether any notifications are sent. This is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage: how to obtain the job ID, the need for confirmation, and the new time. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it omits error handling or return values.
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 input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying the source of jobId (must be obtained from lookup_scheduled_jobs) and the prerequisite for confirmed (customer confirmation). This guidance goes beyond the schema's basic 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 action 'reschedule' and the resource 'one of the authenticated customer's upcoming jobs to a new date and time'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like cancel_job and lookup_scheduled_jobs by specifying that it changes an existing scheduled 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 instructions: call lookup_scheduled_jobs first to get the job ID, and get explicit customer confirmation before setting confirmed to true. This tells the agent both when and how to use the tool, including prerequisites.
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!