debt-payoff-mcp
Server Details
Debt payoff planner: snowball vs avalanche — months to debt-free & total interest. Remote MCP.
- 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 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool covers a distinct financial domain: budgeting, debt payoff planning, and savings goals. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, even the numeric prefix in 'budget_50_30_20' is clear and intentional.
With 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to personal financial planning without being too sparse or overloaded.
The set covers budgeting, debt payoff, and savings goals comprehensively, but lacks tools for income/expense tracking or investment planning, which are minor gaps.
Available Tools
3 toolsbudget_50_30_20AInspect
Split a monthly take-home income into a 50/30/20 budget (needs / wants / savings & debt). Returns dollar targets for each bucket. Optional custom percentages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| needsPct | No | Optional. % for needs (default 50). | |
| wantsPct | No | Optional. % for wants (default 30). | |
| savingsPct | No | Optional. % for savings & debt payoff (default 20). | |
| monthlyIncome | Yes | Monthly take-home (after-tax) income in dollars. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes return of dollar targets but not behavior like handling non-100% custom percentages. No annotations, so description carries full burden but lacks detail.
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, front-loaded with purpose and optional custom percentages. No extraneous content.
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?
For a simple calculation tool with no output schema, description adequately explains inputs and outputs. Could specify return format (e.g., object with bucket names) but not critical.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions. Description adds no new info; default percentages are already documented in 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 it splits monthly take-home income into 50/30/20 budget, returns dollar targets. Distinguishes from siblings (debt_payoff_plan, savings_goal) by focusing on budgeting.
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?
Implied usage for budgeting income, but no explicit when-to-use or comparison with siblings. Agent must infer from tool names and descriptions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
debt_payoff_planAInspect
Plan how to pay off debt(s): returns months to debt-free, total interest, and payoff order — comparing the snowball (smallest balance first) and avalanche (highest APR first) strategies. Accepts one debt or many.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apr | No | Annual interest rate %, single-debt shortcut. | |
| min | No | Monthly minimum payment, single-debt shortcut. | |
| debts | No | Your debts; each has name, balance, apr (annual %), min (monthly minimum payment). | |
| extra | No | Extra $/month toward debt beyond the minimums. Default 0. | |
| balance | No | Single-debt shortcut (use with apr & min instead of debts[]). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains what the tool returns (months to debt-free, total interest, payoff order) and compares two strategies. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, and it adequately covers the tool's behavior without mentioning side effects, which are not expected for a planning tool.
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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and output, with no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description explains the return values (months to debt-free, total interest, payoff order) and mentions acceptance of one or many debts. It could be more explicit about how extra payment is applied, but overall is fairly complete for a planning tool with simple parameters.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the strategies and output, but does not elaborate on parameter-specific nuances beyond what the schema provides, such as how 'extra' is applied across multiple debts.
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's purpose: planning debt payoff by comparing snowball and avalanche strategies, and returning months to debt-free, total interest, and payoff order. It also notes it accepts one or many debts, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like budgeting or savings tools.
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 the user has debts to pay off, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on choosing between the two strategies or when to use single vs multiple debt inputs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
savings_goalAInspect
How long to reach a savings goal. Given a target amount, monthly contribution, optional current savings and APY, returns months/years to reach it and total contributed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apy | No | Optional. Annual interest/return % on savings (default 0). | |
| goalAmount | Yes | Target amount to save, in dollars. | |
| currentSaved | No | Optional. Amount already saved (default 0). | |
| monthlyContribution | Yes | Amount saved each month, in dollars. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses inputs (target amount, monthly contribution, optional current savings and APY) and outputs (months/years and total contributed). It does not mention side effects or accuracy assumptions, but as a calculator this is sufficient.
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?
A single sentence efficiently conveys all essential information, front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values. For a calculator with 4 parameters, it covers all relevant aspects. Could mention compounding assumptions but not required.
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 clarifying optionality (APY, current savings) and output (total contributed), providing context beyond the schema descriptions.
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 calculates time to reach a savings goal, distinguishing it from sibling tools like budget_50_30_20 (a budgeting rule) and debt_payoff_plan (for debt). The verb 'reach' and resource 'savings goal' are specific.
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 the user has a target amount and monthly contribution, and does not mention budgeting or debt payoff, suggesting alternatives. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct sibling references.
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!