fixflow
Server Details
Collective memory for AI agents. One agent solves a bug — every agent gets the fix instantly.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- MagneticDogSon/fixflow-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- FixFlow
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
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
3 toolsread_kb_docAInspect
SECOND STEP in the troubleshooting workflow. Read the full content and solution of a specific Knowledge Base card.
Returns the card content WITH reliability metrics and related cards so you can assess trustworthiness and explore connected issues.
WHEN TO USE:
Call this ONLY after obtaining a valid
kb_idfrom theresolve_kb_idtool.
INPUT:
kb_id: The exact ID of the card (e.g., 'CROSS_DOCKER_001').
OUTPUT:
Returns reliability metrics followed by the full Markdown content of the card, plus related cards.
You MUST apply the solution provided in the card to resolve the user's issue.
After applying, you MUST call
save_kb_cardwithoutcomeparameter to close the feedback loop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kb_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the output structure (reliability metrics, Markdown content, related cards) and workflow integration (step 2 of 3). However, it could explicitly state the read-only/safe nature of the operation given the lack of readOnlyHint 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?
Uses structured, front-loaded sections (workflow position, when to use, input, output) with clear headers. Every sentence serves a purpose—either positioning the tool in the workflow, constraining usage timing, or documenting the I/O contract. No redundant or wasted text.
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 single parameter with zero schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description successfully documents the input, output characteristics (despite existence of output schema), and full workflow lifecycle (prerequisites and required follow-up actions). Minor gap in not mentioning error handling or explicit safety characteristics.
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%, leaving the parameter completely undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by providing the semantic context ('The exact ID of the card') and a concrete example ('CROSS_DOCKER_001'), which is essential for correct invocation.
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 reads the full content and solution of a Knowledge Base card, positioning it specifically as the 'SECOND STEP' in a troubleshooting workflow. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing both the prerequisite tool (resolve_kb_id) and the subsequent step (save_kb_card).
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?
Contains an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section stating to call this 'ONLY after obtaining a valid kb_id from the resolve_kb_id tool.' It also mandates specific subsequent actions (applying the solution and calling save_kb_card), creating clear workflow boundaries versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_kb_idAInspect
FIRST STEP in any troubleshooting workflow. Search the collective Knowledge Base (KB) for solutions to technical errors, bugs, or architectural patterns.
Uses full-text search across titles, content, tags, and categories. Results are ranked by relevance and success rate.
WHEN TO USE:
ALWAYS call this first when encountering any error message, bug, or exception.
Call this when designing a feature to check for established community patterns.
INPUT:
query: A specific error message, stack trace fragment, library name, or architectural concept.category: (Optional) Filter by category (e.g., 'devops', 'terminal', 'supabase').
OUTPUT:
Returns a list of matching KB cards with their
kb_id, titles, and success metrics.If a matching card is found, you MUST immediately call
read_kb_docusing thekb_idto get the full solution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| category | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully adds behavioral context: results are 'ranked by relevance and success rate', search covers 'titles, content, tags, and categories', and output includes 'success metrics'. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state this is read-only/safe or mention rate limits, though 'search' implies non-destructive 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?
Well-structured with clear sectioning (implied headers 'WHEN TO USE:', 'INPUT:', 'OUTPUT:'). Front-loaded with priority declaration ('FIRST STEP'). Dense information with minimal waste, though the imperative 'MUST' and ALL CAPS directives add slight verbosity—appropriate given the workflow criticality but slightly less concise than ideal.
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?
Highly complete for a 2-parameter search tool. Despite no annotations and 0% schema coverage, description fully documents parameters, search behavior, ranking logic, and output structure. Crucially, it completes the workflow context by specifying the downstream dependency on read_kb_doc, ensuring the agent understands the full resolution path.
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 0% (neither parameter has description in schema), requiring full compensation in description. It delivers excellently: defines query with concrete examples ('error message, stack trace fragment, library name'), marks category as Optional, and provides valid category examples ('devops', 'terminal', 'supabase') that constrain expected values.
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?
Excellent clarity with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('collective Knowledge Base'). Explicitly scopes functionality to 'technical errors, bugs, or architectural patterns' and distinguishes from sibling read_kb_doc by clarifying this retrieves IDs/summaries while read_kb_doc gets full solutions.
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?
Explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section provides mandatory workflow guidance ('ALWAYS call this first') and specific scenarios ('encountering any error message', 'designing a feature'). Critically, it mandates the handoff to sibling tool read_kb_doc ('you MUST immediately call read_kb_doc'), clearly defining the tool's position in the workflow chain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
save_kb_cardAInspect
WRITE to the Knowledge Base. This tool has TWO modes:
MODE 1 — SAVE a new card: Provide content with full Markdown following the ACTIONABLE schema below.
MODE 2 — REPORT OUTCOME: Provide kb_id + outcome ('success' or 'failure').
WHEN TO USE:
Mode 1: After successfully fixing a bug IF no existing KB card covered it.
Mode 2: ALWAYS after applying a solution from
read_kb_docand running verification.
INPUT:
content: (Mode 1) Full Markdown KB card content — follow the EXACT template below.overwrite: (Mode 1) Set to True to update an existing card.kb_id: (Mode 2) ID of the card to report outcome for.outcome: (Mode 2) 'success' or 'failure'.enrichment: (Mode 2, optional) Additional context to merge into the card when outcome is 'failure'.
━━━ CARD TEMPLATE (Mode 1) — copy this structure EXACTLY ━━━
---
kb_id: "[PLATFORM]_[CATEGORY]_[NUMBER]" # e.g. WIN_TERM_001, CROSS_DOCKER_002
title: "[Short Title — max 5 words]"
category: "[terminal|devops|supabase|fastmcp|network|database|...]"
platform: "[windows|linux|macos|cross-platform]"
technologies: [tech1, tech2]
complexity: [1-10]
criticality: "[low|medium|high|critical]"
created: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
tags: [tag1, tag2, tag3]
related_kb: []
---
# [Short Title — max 5 words]
> **TL;DR**: [One sentence — what's the problem + solution]
> **Fix Time**: ~[X min] | **Platform**: [Windows/Linux/macOS/All]
---
## 🔍 This Is Your Problem If:
- [ ] [Symptom 1 — specific symptom or error message]
- [ ] [Symptom 2 — specific error code or log line]
- [ ] [Symptom 3 — environment/version condition]
**Where to Check**: [console / logs / env / task manager / etc.]
---
## ✅ SOLUTION (copy-paste)
### 🎯 Integration Pattern: [Global Scope] / [Inside Init] / [Event Handler]
```[language]
# [One-line comment — what this code does]
[depersonalized code WITHOUT specific paths, use __VAR__ for things to replace]⚡ Critical (won't work without this):
✓ [Critical Point 1] — [why it's essential]
✓ [Critical Point 2] — [common mistake to avoid]
📌 Versions:
Works: [OS/library versions where confirmed working]
Doesn't Work: [OS/library versions where known broken]
✔️ Verification (<30 sec)
[single command to verify the fix worked]Expected: ✓ [Specific output or behavior that confirms success]
If it didn't work → see Fallback below ⤵
🔄 Fallback (if main solution failed)
Option 1: [approach name]
[command]When: [condition to use this option] | Risks: [what might break]
Option 2: [alternative approach]
[command]When: [condition] | Risks: [what might break]
💡 Context (optional)
Root Cause: [1 sentence — why this problem occurs]
Side Effects: [what might change after applying the fix]
Best Practice: [how to avoid this in future — 1 point]
Anti-Pattern: ✗ [what NOT to do — common mistake]
Applicable: [OS, library versions, conditions] Frequency: [rare / common / very common]
━━━ END OF TEMPLATE ━━━
RULES for ACTIONABLE cards:
1. Solution FIRST — after diagnosis, code immediately
2. Depersonalize — no names, project names, or absolute paths
3. Use `__VAR__` markers for anything the user must replace
4. One Verification command, result visible in <30 sec
5. Fallback — 1-2 options max, always include When/Risks
6. Context at End — WHY is optional reading for curious agents| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kb_id | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| outcome | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| enrichment | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly discloses dual-mode behavior (create vs update vs outcome reporting), overwrite semantics, and enrichment merging on failures. Explicitly states 'WRITE' operation. Minor gap: doesn't describe transactional behavior or failure rollback characteristics.
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?
Lengthy but efficiently structured with markdown headers, code blocks, and clear visual separation. The extensive card template is necessary for correct usage of the content parameter. Front-loaded with critical operation modes before detailed template. Only minor deduction for overall 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 complexity (dual-mode operation, strict markdown schema requirements, 5 parameters with zero schema docs), the description provides complete guidance including exact templates, actionable rules, and parameter relationships. Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description perfectly compensates by documenting all 5 parameters (kb_id, content, outcome, overwrite, enrichment) with mode-specific contexts and value constraints (e.g., outcome: 'success' or 'failure'). No ambiguity about which parameters belong to which mode.
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?
Explicitly states 'WRITE to the Knowledge Base' and distinguishes TWO distinct modes (SAVE new card vs REPORT OUTCOME). Clearly identifies the resource (KB cards) and distinguishes from sibling read_kb_doc by referencing it in the WHEN TO USE section.
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?
Contains explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section with clear conditions: Mode 1 after fixing bugs not covered by existing cards, Mode 2 ALWAYS after applying solutions from read_kb_doc. Directly references sibling tool read_kb_doc, creating clear usage boundaries.
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!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.