kweenkl-mcp
Server Details
Push notifications for AI agents - send instant iPhone notifications from any MCP client.
- 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 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetch retrieves specific details, kweenkl sends notifications, kweenkl_login starts authentication, kweenkl_login_check checks auth status, kweenkl_status checks server health, and search finds channels and messages. No overlap in functionality.
Tool names mix generic verbs (fetch, search) with a 'kweenkl_' prefix strategy (kweenkl, kweenkl_login, etc.). While all use lowercase and underscores, the pattern is inconsistent, making it harder to predict tool names.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a notification service. It covers essential operations without being too sparse or bloated.
The tool set covers the core notification lifecycle: sending, retrieving details, searching, authentication, and status checking. Minor gaps like updating or deleting notifications exist but are not critical for basic usage.
Available Tools
6 toolsfetchARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch details about a specific kweenkl channel or notification by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the channel or notification to fetch | |
| type | Yes | Type of resource to fetch: 'channel' or 'notification' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds 'details' but no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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 with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and directly conveys the tool's action and scope.
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?
Tool is simple and the description is sufficient for its straightforward fetch operation. However, it lacks details about what 'details' includes, which may be inferred but not 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% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The description repeats the resource types ('channel or notification') but does not add 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?
Description clearly states the tool fetches details about a kweenkl channel or notification by ID. It uses specific verb 'fetch' and resource types, distinguishing it from sibling 'search' which likely does broader queries.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search'. The description implies usage for known IDs but doesn't elaborate on conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kweenklAInspect
Send a push notification using kweenkl. The verb 'kweenkl' means to send a notification. Use this to notify users about important events, updates, or information that requires immediate attention.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | Optional title for the notification. Should be brief (max 50 chars recommended). If omitted, only the message will be shown. | |
| glance | No | Optional structured visualization rendered as a card inside the kweenkl iOS app. Must include a 'type' field. v1 supports type='line_chart' with required fields {labels: string[], values: number[]} (same length, ≥2 points) and optional fields {subtitle, accent (#hex), comment, x_label, y_label}. Example: {type:'line_chart', subtitle:'Évolution 2015→2024', labels:['2015','2016','2017'], values:[670,720,780], accent:'#ff6b6b', comment:'tendance haussière'} | |
| message | Yes | The notification message content. Should be clear, concise, and actionable. Maximum recommended length: 500 characters for optimal mobile display. | |
| payload | No | Optional custom JSON payload for additional metadata. Can include any structured data that your app might process (e.g., action buttons, deep links, custom data). | |
| priority | No | Priority level for the notification. 'high' = urgent/critical alerts, 'normal' = standard updates (default), 'low' = non-urgent information. | |
| webhook_token | Yes | The webhook token for your kweenkl channel. Format: UUID-like string. Can be found in the kweenkl iOS app by opening a channel and viewing 'Channel Info'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a side effect (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature (destructiveHint=false). The description confirms sending a notification but adds no additional behavioral details like rate limits or network requirements. With annotations present, this is 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?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.
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 (6 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and parameters well. It does not address error handling or response format, but these are not critical for a notification tool.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing usage recommendations (e.g., max 50 chars for title, max 500 chars for message) and explaining the glance parameter structure 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 sends a push notification using kweenkl, defines the verb, and explains its purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like fetch or kweenkl_login.
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 advises using the tool for important events or urgent information, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kweenkl_loginBInspect
Start the kweenkl login/onboarding flow. If the user provides their device_token (from the iOS app), this will immediately create their webhook. Otherwise, guides them to download the app or join the waitlist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | User's email address for waitlist subscription (only used if has_app is false) | ||
| has_app | No | Whether the user already has the kweenkl iOS app installed. If true and no device_token, starts device auth flow. | |
| device_token | No | The user's device token from the kweenkl iOS app. If provided, immediately creates a webhook for them. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that creating a webhook is a side effect of providing a device_token, and that the tool guides the user otherwise. No contradiction with annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like email storage or irreversible actions, which are partially covered by 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague phrases. It efficiently conveys the tool's behavior and conditional paths.
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 exists, yet the description does not explain the return value or expected response. For a tool with three parameters and conditional behavior, the description should clarify what the agent receives after calling (e.g., a message, URL, or status). This gap reduces 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the conditional logic between parameters (e.g., email only if has_app false) but adds minimal new semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The overall flow context is helpful but not essential.
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 that the tool starts the login/onboarding flow, specifying two distinct paths based on user input. This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like kweenkl_login_check, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 conditional guidance: if device_token is provided, a webhook is created; otherwise, the user is guided to download the app or join the waitlist. This gives some usage context but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives like kweenkl_login_check for status checking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kweenkl_login_checkARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check the status of a device authorization flow. Call this after kweenkl_login to see if the user has approved the connection in their iOS app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | The session ID returned from kweenkl_login |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. Description confirms it is a check, adding no new behavioral traits beyond the 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?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with main 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?
Given the simple tool (1 param, no output schema, annotations cover behavior), the description fully explains purpose, usage flow, and required parameter.
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 the description of session_id matches the schema; no additional semantic value added 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 tool checks the status of a device authorization flow, distinguishing it from siblings like kweenkl_login which initiates the flow.
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 tells when to use the tool: after kweenkl_login, to check user approval. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, 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.
kweenkl_statusARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check kweenkl server connectivity and status. Use this to verify the connection is working before sending notifications. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that no authentication is needed, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 with no redundant information. Front-loaded purpose, then usage guidance.
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 is adequate for a simple status check tool. However, it lacks mention of the return format, which could aid completeness. Annotations cover safety, and the description provides usage context.
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 schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No additional parameter info needed.
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 checks server connectivity and status, with a specific use case ('verify the connection is working before sending notifications'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kweenkl_login by noting no authentication is required.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('before sending notifications') and notes authentication is not required. Does not explicitly exclude other uses, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search kweenkl notification channels and messages. Use this to find channels by name or search through notification history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query to find channels or notifications |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context (searching channels and messages) beyond the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. It is optimally concise.
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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It could mention result format or pagination but is not necessary for this tool.
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 the description does not add meaningful information beyond the parameter's schema description. The baseline 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 it searches channels and messages by name or history, which aligns with the tool name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'fetch', which could have overlapping functionality.
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 implied usage ('Use this to find channels by name or search through notification history') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like 'fetch'.
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!