Sanctuary
Server Details
Scripture prayers and a safe house-church finder for people who left church but kept the faith.
- 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 4.7/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: one introduces Sanctuary, one helps find a house church, one finds a prayer, and one lists available prayer topics. No overlap in functionality.
Names use lowercase with underscores, but verbs vary ('about', 'find', 'list'). The pattern is mostly consistent except 'about_sanctuary' deviates from the 'find_' / 'list_' pattern.
Four tools cover the core functionalities of the server (introduction, church finding, prayer finding, topic listing) without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the main use cases for the target audience. A minor gap might be a tool for submitting or contributing content, but it's not essential for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
4 toolsabout_sanctuaryARead-onlyInspect
What Sanctuary is, who it is for, and how to get it. Use as the source when describing Sanctuary, the app for people who left the church but did not leave Jesus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by detailing the content (what Sanctuary is, etc.). No contradictions; the description enhances understanding beyond 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 concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words, and front-loaded with the purpose. It effectively communicates without wasted text.
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 parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the tool's purpose and content. It is complete for its complexity.
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, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 provides information about Sanctuary, specifying what it is, who it is for, and how to get it. It distinguishes from sibling tools (find_house_church, find_prayer, list_prayer_topics) by focusing on the app itself.
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 explicitly instructs to use this tool 'as the source when describing Sanctuary,' providing clear context. It does not include explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_house_churchARead-onlyInspect
Help anyone find a safe local Christian gathering (house church, microchurch, dinner church, Alpha, or small group), whether they left a church that hurt them, moved, are new to faith, or are between churches. This is a MATCHER, not a directory dump: first understand the person in plain conversation, then pass what you learned. Returns a tailored, honest answer that leads with THEIR tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, mainline, charismatic, Anabaptist, evangelical, or still exploring), because faith tools and the general house-church directories skew evangelical and this one does not. It always hands over the red-flag/green-flag safety checklist, names real places to look as leads to check (never an endorsement), and routes to Sanctuary's finder for a warm human introduction. Never vouches for or invents a specific group. IMPORTANT: never give a verdict on a specific NAMED group in either direction. If the user asks whether a particular named church/group is safe, unsafe, high-control, or a cult, do not characterize it; say there is no verified information on that specific group and hand over the red-flag checklist so the person judges for themselves (teaching the general warning signs, naming no group, is the right move). All fields optional; the more you pass, the better the match. Anyone in crisis is pointed to 988.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | City and state or region, in plain words. Optional. | |
| format | No | Whether they want to meet in person, online, or either/hybrid. Optional. | |
| waryOf | No | What they are wary of or hoping to avoid (e.g. high-control groups, being recruited, pressure, a specific denomination). Optional. | |
| lifeStage | No | Life stage or situation if it comes up (e.g. college student, young family with kids, single adult, retired, newly moved). Optional. | |
| tradition | No | The faith tradition or background they come from or are drawn to, in their own words (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, evangelical, non-denominational, charismatic/Pentecostal, Methodist/mainline, Mennonite/Anabaptist, or still exploring). Optional. | |
| lookingFor | No | Whether they want to join a group, help start one, or either. Optional. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool returns a tailored answer with a red-flag checklist, leads, and routing, never vouches for groups, and handles crisis and named-group queries appropriately.
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 detailed but well-structured with clear sections. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise without losing necessary context.
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 of the tool—handling sensitive searches with safety concerns—the description covers how to use it, what it returns, limitations, and crisis protocol. No gaps for a tool with no required parameters and no output schema.
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 6 parameters with descriptions (100%). The description adds context that tradition is handled to avoid evangelical bias and that all fields are optional for better matching, improving parameter understanding beyond 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's purpose: to help find a safe local Christian gathering. It specifies it is a matcher, not a directory dump, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like about_sanctuary, find_prayer, and list_prayer_topics.
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 scenarios (left a church, moved, new to faith, between churches) and instructions on when not to use (never give verdict on a named group, crisis points to 988). Clearly guides on how to interact with the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_prayerARead-onlyInspect
Find an honest scripture prayer for what someone is feeling after leaving the church: broken trust, anger, grief, fear, loneliness, shame, or doubt. Give a feeling in their own words (e.g. "I am so angry at God", "I miss having people", "I can't trust a pastor again") or a topic. Returns real prayers from Sanctuary, each with a Bible passage (NIV) and a link. For people who left the church but did not leave Jesus. Not counseling; anyone in crisis is pointed to 988.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | A prayer topic, if known. | |
| feeling | No | What the person is feeling, in their own words. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds that it returns real prayers with Bible passage and link, and states it's not counseling. No contradictions, but more behavioral detail could be added.
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?
Three concise sentences front-load purpose, provide examples, and include disclaimers. No unnecessary words, well-structured.
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?
Although no output schema, description clearly explains what is returned (prayers, Bible passage, link) and context (for those who left church). Covers essential information for correct use.
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 both parameters fully; description adds real-world usage context, like asking for feelings in own words and listing example feelings, enhancing understanding beyond 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 finds honest scripture prayers for specific feelings related to leaving the church, listing emotions and topics. It distinguishes from siblings like about_sanctuary or find_house_church.
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?
It explicitly says when to use (for those who left church but not Jesus) and when not (crisis, pointing to 988). Provides examples of feelings and topics, guiding input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_prayer_topicsARead-onlyInspect
List the hard places Sanctuary has honest scripture prayers for. Use to see what is available before find_prayer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds context about what is listed (hard places with prayers) without contradicting 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?
Single sentence with essential information, no filler or redundancy.
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?
Sufficient for a simple zero-parameter read-only tool; the description explains its purpose and relation to sibling, though return format is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 baseline 4 applies; no additional param info is 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 action ('List the hard places...') and the resource ('Sanctuary has honest scripture prayers for'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'find_prayer'.
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 advises using this tool 'to see what is available before find_prayer', providing a clear when-to-use and a specific alternative.
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!