ELSA — Coach IA de ciclismo y comunidad en LATAM: planifica tu bloque y encuentra tu club.
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 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one recommends a club, the other plans a training block. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal for a 'gateway' concept. It may be appropriate for a very narrow scope but is at the lower bound of reasonable tool counts.
The server covers club matching and training planning, but lacks other lifecycle operations like tracking progress or managing events, leaving notable gaps for a cycling app domain.
match_me_a_clubEncontrar tu clubBRecomienda el club de ELSA que mejor calza con tu volumen y zona, y te lleva a unirte y confirmar tu primer evento.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | City or area | |
| preferred_days | No | ||
| weekly_volume_km | Yes | Typical weekly volume in km |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a write operation ('te lleva a unirte y confirmar tu primer evento'), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: true. This is a direct contradiction, severely undermining transparency. The description should align with the annotation or clarify the join flow as a separate action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with 150 characters, front-loading the verb 'recommend'. It is efficient but could benefit from breaking into clearer components (e.g., recommendation, then join action).
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 3 params, no output schema, and a contradictory annotation, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain how preferred_days is used, what the output looks like, or resolve the read/write inconsistency. The join process is mentioned but not clarified that it may involve external navigation.
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 67%, with descriptions for location and weekly_volume_km. The description mentions 'volume and zone' mapping to these params, but adds no new detail for preferred_days. It provides marginal additional meaning but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description.
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 recommends an ELSA club based on volume and area, and guides the user to join and confirm their first event. It uses specific verbs and resource, and differentiates from sibling tool plan_my_block which likely handles planning blocks rather than club matching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a user wants a club recommendation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool plan_my_block. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
plan_my_blockPlanear bloque de entrenamientoADevuelve un bloque de entrenamiento ciclista periodizado (base/build/peak/taper) hacia tu evento meta, con veredicto de readiness, y te lleva a activarlo en ELSA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_date | Yes | ISO date of the goal event | |
| goal_event | Yes | Target event, e.g. 'Gran Fondo 120km' | |
| recent_training | No | Free-text or pasted Garmin/Strava summary |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds that the tool 'te lleva a activarlo en ELSA' (leads to activation), which could be interpreted as a read-only redirection. No hidden side effects are apparent, and the description is consistent 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 description is a single sentence that conveys the key points efficiently. While it could be slightly more concise or broken into two sentences, it avoids unnecessary fluff and is 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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the main purpose and return value (periodized block with readiness verdict). However, it lacks details on the exact output format or how the activation step works, which would be helpful for the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add new semantic information beyond the purpose, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a periodized cycling training block (base/build/peak/taper) for a goal event, with a readiness verdict. It distinguishes from sibling 'match_me_a_club' which is about club matching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for planning a training block towards a specific event. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the sibling tool is very different, making the context clear.
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!
