A
license-
qualityA
maintenanceEnables AI agents to delegate tasks, run adversarial reviews, and manage background jobs across multiple models and providers via anymodel_* tools.
Apache 2.0
klanex
Server Details
Reliable async execution for agent tool calls: schema gating, retries, idempotency, audit trail.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- chrassy/klanex-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- klanex-mcp
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 Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution. No overlapping functionality; descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution). Naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools cover the core functionality of an execution management server: initiating, checking, listing, replaying executions, plus managing connections and usage. This is well-scoped, not too few nor too many.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides a complete lifecycle for asynchronous API execution: create (execute), check status (get_execution), list (list_executions), replay (replay_execution), manage credentials (list_connections), and monitor usage (get_usage). No obvious gaps for the stated domain.
Available Tools
6 toolsexecuteAInspect
Submit an HTTP call to a third-party API for reliable asynchronous execution. klanex validates the payload (optionally against payload_schema), stores credentials encrypted, executes with automatic retries/backoff/circuit breakers, and keeps an audit trail — you submit once and never retry transient failures yourself.
Call this instead of making a direct HTTP request whenever the call has side effects (payments, messages, tickets, writes) or the target may be flaky. Prefer connection_id over headers for credentials. Always set idempotency_key for side-effecting calls so resubmitting can never double-execute. Set wait_seconds to block for the result; otherwise poll get_execution with the returned execution_id.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | absolute http(s) URL of the target endpoint | |
| method | No | HTTP method: GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, or DELETE (default POST) | |
| headers | No | request headers, typically third-party credentials; encrypted at rest and never readable back. Prefer connection_id so secrets never pass through your context | |
| payload | No | JSON body to send to the target | |
| seal_url | No | set true when the URL itself is a secret (webhook URL, presigned URL); it is encrypted and reads back redacted | |
| timeout_ms | No | per-attempt timeout in milliseconds (default 30000) | |
| max_attempts | No | maximum delivery attempts, 1-10 (default 5) | |
| wait_seconds | No | block up to this many seconds (max 55) for a terminal result instead of returning immediately after queueing | |
| connection_id | No | ID of a stored credential connection (con_...) to authenticate the call; see list_connections | |
| payload_schema | No | JSON Schema to validate payload against before anything executes; mismatches are rejected synchronously with a correction hint | |
| idempotency_key | No | stable key (max 255 chars) making this submit safe to retry; the same key returns the original execution instead of creating a new one. Always set this for side-effecting calls | |
| requires_approval | No | pause for a human approve/reject decision before anything executes; use for destructive or high-stakes actions |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: validates payload optionally, stores credentials encrypted, automatic retries/backoff/circuit breakers, audit trail, idempotency, approval pause, and blocking wait. This covers all critical behavioral traits.
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?
Two paragraphs: first explains the tool's core capability and guarantees, second provides actionable usage guidelines. No superfluous words, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all major aspects: validation, security, reliability, polling. It mentions returning an execution_id but could explicitly state what the output looks like. However, the behavioral context is rich enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds significant value by explaining security for headers, idempotency guidance, and human approval context. This goes well beyond the schema's descriptions.
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 verb 'Submit' and the resource 'HTTP call to a third-party API for reliable asynchronous execution'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_execution) by focusing on submission and asynchronous execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use this instead of direct HTTP requests: for side effects or flaky targets. Also gives specific recommendations like preferring connection_id over headers, setting idempotency_key for side-effecting calls, and using wait_seconds or polling with get_execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_executionAInspect
Fetch the current state of an execution by ID: status (PENDING_APPROVAL|QUEUED|RUNNING|RETRYING|SUCCEEDED|FAILED), attempts, the target response on success, or a classified error on failure. Retryable failures need no action from you — klanex is still retrying. Header values always read back REDACTED.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| execution_id | Yes | the execution ID (exe_...) |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses retry behavior (no action needed for retryable failures) and that header values are redacted, which adds value beyond basic fetch. No annotations to compare.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (status, attempts, target response, error), providing a complete picture for a fetch operation.
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 has 100% coverage with a description for execution_id, and the tool description adds minimal extra context (the 'exe_' prefix) beyond what schema already provides.
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?
Clearly states it fetches execution state by ID, lists possible statuses, and distinguishes from list/execute siblings by specifying single-ID retrieval.
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?
Implies usage for checking a single execution's status by ID, but does not explicitly specify when not to use or mention alternatives like list_executions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_usageAInspect
Report the account's plan and execution usage for the current calendar month: used, included_executions, remaining, and whether overage is allowed. Check this before large batches to avoid hitting a hard quota.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior by stating 'report,' and describes the output. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected. Lack of explicit 'read-only' statement is a minor gap.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by a usage tip. No unnecessary words. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It could mention the return format more explicitly, but for a simple report tool it is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Schema coverage is 100% by default.
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 reports account-level plan and execution usage for the current calendar month, listing specific data points (used, included_executions, remaining, overage). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_execution (individual execution) and list_executions (list).
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?
The description explicitly advises checking before large batches to avoid hard quotas, providing a clear usage scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives, though 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.
list_connectionsAInspect
List the account's stored credential connections (token vault). Reference a ready connection by its ID in execute's connection_id instead of passing raw headers — the credential is injected at execution time and never passes through your context. Secrets are never returned.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses that secrets are never returned and that credentials are injected at execution time, providing important security context.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters or output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and security. Could mention return type implicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is complete. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but no parameter details are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists credential connections (token vault) and provides context for their usage. It could explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to retrieve connection IDs for use with execute, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_executionsAInspect
List this account's executions, newest first, optionally filtered by status or a created_at time range. Returns next_cursor when a page is full; pass it back as cursor for the next page.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | page size, 1-100 (default 20) | |
| since | No | only executions created at or after this RFC3339 timestamp | |
| until | No | only executions created before this RFC3339 timestamp | |
| cursor | No | opaque next_cursor value from a previous page | |
| status | No | filter by status: QUEUED, RUNNING, RETRYING, SUCCEEDED, or FAILED |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses pagination (next_cursor), ordering (newest first), and optional filters. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; does not mention auth or rate limits, but adequate for a listing tool.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ordering, no superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers pagination, ordering, and filtering. Lacks explicit response format, but given no output schema and clear parameter descriptions, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions. Description adds context on pagination flow and ordering, enhancing understanding beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states it lists executions, ordered newest first, with optional filters. Distinguishes from siblings like execute, get_execution, etc.
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?
Explains when to use for paginated listing and filtering. Implicitly distinguishes from single-execution retrieval, but no explicit when-not or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
replay_executionAInspect
Re-run a terminal (SUCCEEDED or FAILED) execution as a brand-new execution: same target, byte-exact original payload, same sealed credentials, fresh attempt counter. This is the outage-recovery path — failed calls can be re-executed without regenerating the payload. Each call creates a new execution (deliberately not idempotent).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| execution_id | Yes | the execution ID (exe_...) |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: non-idempotent (creates new execution), same target/payload/credentials, fresh attempt counter. It does not mention permissions or error conditions, but provides sufficient transparency for a simple tool.
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?
Two sentences: first explains core functionality, second adds use case and key behavioral trait (non-idempotent). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
The description covers purpose and usage but does not explain return values or potential errors. Given no output schema and moderate complexity, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter described. The description adds context by linking the execution_id to the 're-run' action and mentioning the execution type, adding value beyond the schema.
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 re-runs a terminal execution as a brand-new execution with same target, payload, and credentials, and a fresh attempt counter. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the outage-recovery path, differentiating from siblings like 'execute' or 'get_execution'.
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?
The description specifies that it is for outage recovery and that failed calls can be re-executed without regenerating the payload. It implies when to use, but does not provide explicit 'when not to use' alternatives, though 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.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceGoverned agent execution gateway for LLM workflows, providing deterministic FSM-based execution, audit trails, and idempotency guarantees via MCP.5MIT
- Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceSafe, reversible tool execution for AI agents. It sits between an agent and its tool servers, adding contracts, dry-run planning, policy, approvals, saga execution, and rewind.MIT
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceGates agent tool execution with human approval, audit trails, and replay-resistant permits, enabling safe use of tools in agent loops.MIT
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.