Decide Policy Notaries
Server Details
Fail-closed refund, cancellation, return, and trial checks for 100 US subscription vendors.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- decidefyi/decide
- GitHub Stars
- 1
- Server Listing
- decide
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 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct policy evaluation: cancellation penalty, refund eligibility, return eligibility, and trial terms. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., cancellation_penalty, refund_eligibility) using snake_case, making them predictable.
With 4 tools, the count is well-scoped for a policy evaluation server, covering key subscription lifecycle events without being excessive.
The tools cover cancellation, refund, return, and trial terms, which are the main evaluation points for US consumer subscriptions. A minor gap might be missing tools for billing changes or plan modifications, but the surface is largely complete for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
4 toolscancellation_penaltyCheck cancellation penaltyARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Evaluate whether cancelling a US consumer subscription incurs a penalty or lock. Returns UNKNOWN when billing cadence is required or the policy needs manual review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | Plan type. Currently only 'individual' plans are supported. | |
| region | Yes | Region code. Currently only 'US' is supported. | |
| vendor | Yes | Vendor identifier (lowercase, underscore-separated). | |
| billing_cadence | No | Required when the vendor applies different cancellation terms to monthly and annual plans. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | |
| policy | No | |
| vendor | No | |
| message | Yes | |
| penalty | No | |
| verdict | Yes | |
| notice_days | No | |
| source_hash | No | |
| evaluated_at | No | |
| rules_version | No | |
| policy_version | No | |
| billing_cadence | No | |
| rulebook_result | No | |
| required_context | No | |
| policy_source_url | No | |
| policy_last_checked | No | |
| policy_source_notes | No | |
| policy_last_verified_utc | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by noting that the tool may return UNKNOWN when billing cadence is required or manual review is needed, which is not covered by annotations alone.
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 each sentence contributes necessary information. 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 that an output schema exists (not shown but stated), the return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the essential purpose and the special UNKNOWN case. All parameters are described in the schema, so no gaps remain.
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% with each parameter having a description in the schema. The description mentions 'billing_cadence' as required for some vendors, which is already in the schema. Thus, the description adds no meaningful semantic value 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 verb 'Evaluate' and the resource 'cancelling a US consumer subscription incurs a penalty or lock'. It specifies that the tool returns UNKNOWN in certain cases, and it is distinct from sibling tools which handle refunds, returns, and trial terms.
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 context by stating when UNKNOWN is returned (when billing cadence is required or policy needs manual review). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, though the purpose is self-evident given the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
refund_eligibilityCheck refund eligibilityARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Evaluate a US consumer subscription refund against versioned source-backed rules. Returns UNKNOWN when required conditions are absent or the vendor requires approval or manual policy review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | Plan type. Currently only 'individual' plans are supported. | |
| region | Yes | Region code. Currently only 'US' is supported. | |
| vendor | Yes | Vendor identifier (lowercase, underscore-separated). | |
| days_since_purchase | Yes | Number of days since the subscription was purchased. | |
| qualifying_conditions_met | No | Required when the vendor policy has source-specific conditions such as first purchase, unused benefits, or an eligible annual plan. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | |
| vendor | No | |
| message | Yes | |
| verdict | Yes | |
| refundable | No | |
| source_hash | No | |
| window_days | No | |
| evaluated_at | No | |
| rules_version | No | |
| policy_version | No | |
| rulebook_result | No | |
| required_context | No | |
| policy_source_url | No | |
| days_since_purchase | No | |
| policy_last_checked | No | |
| policy_source_notes | No | |
| policy_last_verified_utc | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the UNKNOWN return condition when required conditions are absent or vendor requires approval, which goes beyond annotation data.
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 front-loaded with core purpose and key behavioral detail (UNKNOWN return). Every sentence is meaningful and there is no 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?
With full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behavior. It could mention the versioned nature of rules more explicitly, but overall it is complete enough.
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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 evaluates US consumer subscription refund eligibility against versioned source-backed rules. It specifies the verb 'evaluate', the resource 'subscription refund', and distinguishes from sibling tools like cancellation_penalty or return_eligibility.
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 use for checking refund eligibility but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
return_eligibilityCheck return eligibilityARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Evaluate whether a US consumer subscription purchase can be reversed under versioned source-backed rules. Returns UNKNOWN when required conditions are absent or manual review is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | Plan type. Currently only 'individual' plans are supported. | |
| region | Yes | Region code. Currently only 'US' is supported. | |
| vendor | Yes | Vendor identifier (lowercase, underscore-separated). | |
| days_since_purchase | Yes | Number of days since the subscription was purchased. | |
| qualifying_conditions_met | No | Required when the vendor policy has source-specific conditions such as first purchase, unused benefits, or an eligible annual plan. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | |
| method | No | |
| vendor | No | |
| message | Yes | |
| verdict | Yes | |
| returnable | No | |
| return_type | No | |
| source_hash | No | |
| evaluated_at | No | |
| rules_version | No | |
| policy_version | No | |
| rulebook_result | No | |
| required_context | No | |
| policy_source_url | No | |
| return_window_days | No | |
| days_since_purchase | No | |
| policy_last_checked | No | |
| policy_source_notes | No | |
| policy_last_verified_utc | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds key behavioral detail: the tool returns UNKNOWN when conditions are absent or manual review is needed, enhancing transparency.
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 redundant words, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every sentence adds value.
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 5 parameters (4 required) and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It mentions the UNKNOWN return value, which compensates for not describing output structure in detail. Lacks mention of the optional qualifying_conditions_met parameter, but schema covers it.
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 the description does not need to compensate. It adds minimal semantics beyond schema (e.g., 'US consumer subscription' context), meeting baseline expectations.
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 evaluates return eligibility for US consumer subscriptions under versioned rules, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like refund_eligibility and cancellation_penalty by mentioning 'reversed' and 'UNKNOWN' outcome.
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?
Description implies usage for checking eligibility before reversal but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection guidance among siblings (cancellation_penalty, refund_eligibility, trial_terms).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
trial_termsCheck trial termsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Evaluate a live US consumer subscription trial offer. Supply observed availability, duration, card, and auto-conversion facts; the tool returns UNKNOWN instead of inferring current offers from static data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | Plan type. Currently only 'individual' plans are supported. | |
| region | Yes | Region code. Currently only 'US' is supported. | |
| vendor | Yes | Vendor identifier (lowercase, underscore-separated). | |
| offer_confirmed | No | For account- or promotion-specific trials, whether a live offer has been confirmed for this account. | |
| observed_trial_days | No | Trial duration shown by the confirmed live offer. Required when offer_confirmed is true for a variable offer. | |
| observed_auto_converts | No | Whether the confirmed live offer converts to a paid subscription after the trial. | |
| observed_card_required | No | Whether the confirmed live offer requires a payment card. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | |
| vendor | No | |
| message | Yes | |
| verdict | Yes | |
| trial_days | No | |
| source_hash | No | |
| evaluated_at | No | |
| auto_converts | No | |
| card_required | No | |
| rules_version | No | |
| policy_version | No | |
| rulebook_result | No | |
| trial_available | No | |
| required_context | No | |
| policy_source_url | No | |
| policy_last_checked | No | |
| policy_source_notes | No | |
| policy_last_verified_utc | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds key behavior: the tool returns UNKNOWN if current offers are not supplied via observations, emphasizing it does not infer from static data. This is useful context.
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: the first states the purpose, the second explains the key behavior and inputs. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no 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 large vendor enum and many optional parameters, the description covers the essential points. It explains the core behavior (returns UNKNOWN) and what to supply. The output schema (not shown) likely details return structure, so no omission is 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that parameters represent observed facts and should be supplied when available, adding context beyond the schema's 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 evaluates live US consumer subscription trial offers. It specifies the action (evaluate) and the resource (trial offer), and distinguishes from sibling tools (cancellation, refund, return) by focusing on trial terms.
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 tells users to supply observed facts (availability, duration, card, auto-conversion) and notes the tool returns UNKNOWN rather than inferring. This guides use, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or contrast with siblings beyond the core purpose.
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!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.