Skip to main content
Glama

Project Intake Identifier

Server Details

Identify the project handle from an intake note

Status
Unhealthy
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.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

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.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 3.7/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of ambiguity between tools. The single tool is clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, there is no inconsistency in naming. The name 'extract_project_code' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count3/5

While the single tool is focused and non-trivial, the server's purpose might benefit from additional tools (e.g., validating or formatting the code), making it feel slightly thin.

Completeness5/5

The tool fully covers the server's stated purpose of identifying project handles from text, with no obvious gaps for its intended use.

Available Tools

1 tool
extract_project_codeProject Intake IdentifierAInspect

Identifies the project handle inside client briefs, delivery notes, and review updates so account teams can route follow-up work to the right workspace.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYesClient brief, delivery note, or project update text.
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return value format, error handling, side effects, or whether it is read-only. The description carries full burden but provides minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., project handle string, workspace ID). It adequately explains the tool's role in a workflow but lacks completeness for an extraction tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'note', so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool identifies a project handle from specified text types (client briefs, delivery notes, review updates) for routing purposes, providing a specific verb and resource with clear scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While no sibling tools exist to differentiate, the description implies usage context (routing follow-up work) and the type of input texts, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources