Diagnose common dog behaviour problems, get program pricing, and submit the free assessment.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. There is no overlap: payment enrollment, article retrieval, program info, topic listing, article search, and assessment submission are all unique operations.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_enrollment_checkout, search_dog_problems). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verbs.
With 6 tools, the server covers the essential user workflow without being sparse or bloated. Each tool serves a necessary function for the domain.
The tool set covers the full user journey: exploring the library (search, list topics, get article), learning about programs, submitting a free assessment, and enrolling. No obvious gaps for the intended purpose.
create_enrollment_checkoutCreate a Stripe checkout URL for DLA enrollmentAInspectCreate a Stripe Checkout URL for the user to complete enrollment in a chosen tier. Returns a URL the user opens in a browser to pay — the agent NEVER handles payment or card details directly. Only call after the user has explicitly chosen a tier and asked to enroll.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | Yes | One of: essentials_monthly, essentials_annual, premium_monthly, premium_annual. | |
| owner_name | No | Optional. Attached to the Stripe session metadata. | |
| owner_email | No | Optional. If supplied, pre-fills the Stripe email field. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It correctly states the tool returns a URL and that the agent never handles payment details. However, it does not mention potential side effects like creating a Stripe session object or authentication prerequisites.
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-loads the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. 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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return type. Missing details on error handling or prerequisites, but adequate for a simple checkout creation 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 descriptions in the schema are clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 the tool creates a Stripe Checkout URL for enrollment, using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Stripe Checkout URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are dog problem related, not payment.
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 states when to call ('Only call after the user has explicitly chosen a tier and asked to enroll') and provides a clear caution about not handling payment directly. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no alternative needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_dog_problem_articleGet one DLA articleAInspectReturn the TL;DR, section overview, and CTA URL for a single article from the DLA library, by its slug. Use after search_dog_problems finds a match. Does NOT return the exact protocol (that lives inside the paid programs) — only the diagnostic content and the CTA to the free assessment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The article slug (from search results). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It details what the tool returns (TL;DR, section overview, CTA URL) and what it does not return (protocol), giving agents a clear expectation of the response scope.
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, immediately front-loading the returned content and usage context. Every sentence is essential with no redundant information.
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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers inputs, outputs, and limitations. It explains the return type and what is excluded, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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?
The input schema already describes the 'slug' parameter, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds value by specifying 'from search results,' clarifying the source of the slug beyond the schema's generic description.
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 returns 'TL;DR, section overview, and CTA URL for a single article from the DLA library, by its slug.' It distinguishes from siblings like search_dog_problems and get_program_info by specifying it is for diagnostic content and not the protocol.
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 advises 'Use after `search_dog_problems` finds a match,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not, however, explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_program_info, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_program_infoGet DLA program pricing + sales pitchAInspectReturn information about Dog Leadership Academy's coaching programs — pricing, what's included, and the DLA sales pitch. Use when the user asks how much it costs, what they get, or how DLA works. Options: essentials_monthly, essentials_annual, premium_monthly, premium_annual, or omit tier for all four plus the sales pitch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Optional. One of: essentials_monthly, essentials_annual, premium_monthly, premium_annual. Omit to receive all tiers. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a tool that returns static info, this is a gap.
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 immediately followed by usage guidance and parameter options. 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter details. It could mention that the tool is non-destructive, but overall it is sufficient.
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?
The schema covers the tier parameter 100%. The description adds value by listing the exact enum values and explaining that omitting tier returns all tiers plus the sales pitch, going 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 'return' and the resource 'DLA program info', listing specific content (pricing, inclusions, sales pitch). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_enrollment_checkout which handles purchases.
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 says 'Use when the user asks how much it costs, what they get, or how DLA works.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not mention when not to use it or give alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_dog_problem_topicsList DLA library topicsAInspectReturn the taxonomy of the DLA library: six clusters (Reactivity, Loose-leash walking, Puppy foundations, Obedience/recall, Household behaviour problems, Method & philosophy) and the article titles in each. Use to enumerate what the library covers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the behavior (returning taxonomy) with no side effects. Could add that it is a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description is already clear enough for an agent.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and provides the key details (six clusters) efficiently.
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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It names the clusters and indicates the structure. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the output format (e.g., list of objects), but it's inferred well 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?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no param info because none 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 tool returns the taxonomy of the DLA library with six named clusters and article titles. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_dog_problems (for searching) and get_dog_problem_article (for retrieving a single article).
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 says 'Use to enumerate what the library covers,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. While it doesn't mention when not to use, the context with sibling tools makes it sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_dog_problemsSearch the DLA behaviour libraryAInspectSearch the Dog Leadership Academy library of ~70 common dog behaviour problems. Returns matching articles with title, one-line description, TL;DR summary, article URL, and the CTA URL to the free 4-minute behavioural assessment. Use for questions like "my dog pulls on the leash", "reactive dog", "puppy biting", "separation anxiety", "recall failing".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of matching articles to return (1-10). | |
| query | Yes | The behaviour problem, in the owner's own words. Free text. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (title, description, summary, URLs), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects.
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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the core action and resource. The second lists return fields and example queries. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields (title, one-line description, TL;DR summary, article URL, CTA URL). It also notes the library size (~70 problems). For a simple search tool with two parameters, this provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what to expect.
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 value for the 'query' parameter by advising 'in the owner's own words' and providing usage examples, but adds nothing for 'limit' beyond what the schema already provides. Overall, modest added meaning.
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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'Dog Leadership Academy library of ~70 common dog behaviour problems'. It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like get_dog_problem_article (single article retrieval) and list_dog_problem_topics (topic listing) by focusing on semantic search over the library. The examples of queries further reinforce the tool's scope.
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 states 'Use for questions like...' and provides five concrete example queries, giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_dog_behaviour_assessmentSubmit the free DLA behavioural assessmentAInspectSubmit the 8-question free behavioural assessment on the user's behalf. This is the same form that lives at https://www.dogleadershipacademy.com/assessment. On success we send a personalised written analysis to the owner's email within a few minutes, written by George Tran and the DLA team. The user does NOT need to visit the website — the submission goes directly to our intake system. Only call this when the user has explicitly asked for a free personalised assessment and provided their email, their dog's name, and their answers to the 8 questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dog_age | No | Age in years, or life stage ("puppy", "young adult", "senior"). | |
| history | No | Relevant history — bite incidents, medical, rescue background, training history. | |
| urgency | No | "low" | "medium" | "high" | "safety concern" — how urgent is this. | |
| dog_name | Yes | The dog's name. | |
| dog_breed | No | Breed or best guess (e.g., "Labrador", "mixed breed"). | |
| household | No | Household context — kids, other dogs, home setup, work schedule. | |
| owner_name | No | The owner's first name. | |
| owner_email | Yes | The owner's email. Assessment is sent here. | |
| primary_problem | Yes | The MAIN behaviour problem the owner wants fixed, in their own words. | |
| what_theyve_tried | No | What the owner has already tried and how it went. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that a personalized written analysis is sent to the owner's email within minutes and that the user does not need to visit the website. Some details about reversibility or data modification are missing, but the main behavioral outcomes are covered.
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 front-loaded with the purpose and is well-structured. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise when detailing the email analysis and team author.
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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: it explains the outcome (email with analysis), how it differs from the website, and when to call. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though a note on expected response or error handling would improve 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'their answers to the 8 questions' but does not map which schema properties correspond to those questions, missing an opportunity to clarify the 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?
Description clearly states it submits the 8-question free behavioural assessment on behalf of the user, with explicit verb 'submit' and resource 'DLA behavioural assessment'. It is distinctly different from sibling tools which handle enrollment, articles, programs, or problem search.
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 says 'Only call this when the user has explicitly asked for a free personalised assessment and provided their email, their dog's name, and their answers to the 8 questions.' This provides clear conditions for use and implies not to use for other purposes.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
