Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Andru

by io.github.geter-andru
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Start sign-up

signup_start

Getting set up: use this when the person asks to sign up for or sign in to Andru from here. Send their email. Andru emails them a 6-digit code and an Approve button. If they read you the code, call signup_verify. If they tap Approve, call signup_status with the request_id until it returns your key. They also choose how much you can spend without asking them; it starts at nothing beyond the daily free calls.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "signup_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe person's email. The code goes here.
websiteNoOptional: their company website, e.g. acme.com. Andru reads it so its answers are about what they sell.
foundViaNoOptional: how the person or their agent found Andru: moltbook, a2a_directory, mcp_registry (includes Smithery), npm, search, ai_assistant, person or other. Other text is kept as written.
agentNameNoOptional: your agent's name. The key is named after it.
previewIdNoOptional: from preview_company. The read becomes their first ICP.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false / openWorldHint=false / destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does it well: it discloses the out-of-band side effect (an email with a 6-digit code and Approve button), the two completion paths, and the spend-permission default ('starts at nothing beyond the daily free calls'). It stops short of covering repeat-call or idempotency behavior and what a second call does to an existing pending signup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then narrates the branch outcomes in short declarative sentences. Every clause is load-bearing, though the sign-in-vs-sign-up conflation and the trailing spend sentence make it a touch denser than the minimum a caller needs.

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?

For a multi-step signup entry point with no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what gets sent, what the user will see, which sibling to call in each branch, and the loop termination condition ('until it returns your key'). An agent can drive the whole flow from this text.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the optional website, foundVia, agentName and previewId. The description corroborates only 'Send their email' and adds 'they also choose how much you can spend', which is not actually a schema parameter and creates slight ambiguity about where that choice is made. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('sign up for or sign in to Andru') and immediately frames it as the entry point of an onboarding flow. The follow-on sentences distinguish it cleanly from signup_verify (code path) and signup_status (approve path), so an agent can pick the right sibling without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the person asks to sign up for or sign in to ... from here') and then branches on outcome: read the code -> signup_verify, tap Approve -> signup_status polled with request_id until the key returns. Alternatives and their selecting conditions are all named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Andru toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources