Read-only U.S. mortgage market, lender, GSE performance, and servicing analytics.
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 3.2/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
Most tools target clearly distinct data domains: lender search/profile/compare cluster around HMDA lender analytics, while market snapshot, loan performance, servicer analytics, and SEC filing tools are separate. The only minor ambiguity is between get_lender_profile, compare_lenders, and search_lenders which all deal with lender keys, though their intents (search vs. profile vs. comparison) are distinct.
Tools follow a consistent get_/search_/compare_ verb pattern with clear noun targets (lenders, market_snapshot, loan_performance, sec_filing). The one deviation is that search_lenders, search_sec_filings, and compare_lenders use non-get verbs while the rest use get_, but this is a sensible pattern matching read vs. search semantics.
At 9 tools, this is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool appears to represent a meaningful consumer capability for a mortgage analytics domain. The count feels appropriately scoped without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers market data, SEC filings, lender profiles, loan performance, and servicer analytics, but there are notable gaps: there's no mutation capability (all read-oriented), no way to combine or join across these domains, and no search tool for loan performance or market data topics - those are limited to pre-bounded topics. Some domains feel like they have single query points rather than full browsing coverage.
compare_lendersCCompare two canonical HMDA lender keys returned by search_lenders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_n | No | ||
| lender_a | Yes | ||
| lender_b | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what 'compare' means or what aspects are compared.
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 very concise (single sentence) but lacks structure and additional detail. It is efficient but under-specified for a tool with 3 parameters.
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?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description does not explain what the comparison entails (e.g., differences, similarities, metrics). The tool's purpose is clear, but the missing behavioral and parameter context leaves the agent underinformed.
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 0%, and the description fails to explain any parameters, including the optional 'top_n' which controls result count. The description does not compensate for the missing schema details.
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 'compare' and the resource 'canonical HMDA lender keys', and references the sibling tool 'search_lenders', distinguishing it from other 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 after search_lenders, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_lender_profile or get_market_snapshot.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_dataset_statusAGet mtgmon dataset coverage, freshness, build, and cache status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints. Description adds value by detailing the returned status components (coverage, freshness, build, cache). No contradiction with 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 that efficiently conveys purpose and scope. No wasted words, front-loaded with action.
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 parameterless tool with output schema, the description provides the key return categories. Annotations cover safety. Could add mention of current state or system context, but sufficient for a status 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?
No parameters exist (empty schema, 100% coverage). Description correctly omits parameter info. Baseline of 4 applies per rules for zero parameters.
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 retrieves mtgmon dataset status, specifying coverage, freshness, build, and cache. Verb 'Get' and resource 'mtgmon dataset' are specific. Sibling tools focus on lenders, loans, etc., making this distinct.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied by sibling tool names (compare_lenders, etc.), but no direct alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_lender_profileAGet a bounded HMDA profile for one canonical lender key returned by search_lenders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_n | No | ||
| lender | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds limited behavioral context. The term 'bounded' hints at limited data but is not elaborated. No contradiction with 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 that is both concise and front-loaded with the key information. No unnecessary words, and every word 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?
There is an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description fails to mention the top_n parameter and does not clarify what 'bounded' means in terms of HMDA profile data. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the top_n parameter or its purpose. The lender parameter is self-explanatory, but the lack of explanation for top_n (defaults, maximum, effect) leaves the agent with incomplete information.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'bounded HMDA profile', and specifies it's for one canonical lender key returned by search_lenders, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_lenders (which returns multiple lenders) and compare_lenders.
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?
Directly tells the agent to use this tool after search_lenders to get a profile for a specific lender key. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear, and the mention of 'bounded' implies limitations. No alternatives are listed, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_loan_performanceCGet bounded GSE loan-performance analytics for one clearly defined topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gse | No | all | |
| top_n | No | ||
| topic | Yes | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No | ||
| max_points | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'bounded', hinting at output limits or scoping, but does not detail rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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 single-sentence description is concise but overly brief. It front-loads the core purpose but sacrifices important details, making it efficient yet insufficient for a tool with six parameters.
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 complexity (6 parameters, enums, date ranges), the description is incomplete. It does not explain 'bounded', how topics map to analytics, date usage, or the meaning of top_n and max_points. The presence of an output schema mitigates return value documentation, but parameter usage remains underdescribed.
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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter beyond implying topic selection. Critical parameters like gse, top_n, dates, and max_points have no semantic guidance, forcing the agent to rely on enum names and defaults.
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 purpose: retrieving 'GSE loan-performance analytics' with qualifiers 'bounded' and 'one clearly defined topic', which distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like get_market_snapshot or get_servicer_analytics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention conditions for use, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_market_snapshotAGet current mortgage, TBA, Treasury, SOFR, and fitted MBS-basis observations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety and idempotency. Description adds value by specifying the types of observations retrieved, but doesn't mention any additional behavioral traits like freshness or pagination.
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, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action and key nouns.
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 zero parameters and presence of output schema, the description fully informs the agent about the tool's data scope without missing critical details.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description does not need to provide parameter details; baseline 4 applies.
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 uses specific verb 'Get' and clearly lists the financial data categories (mortgage, TBA, Treasury, SOFR, fitted MBS-basis). It distinguishes well from sibling tools which focus on lenders, loans, etc.
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?
No explicit when/when-not guidance, but the purpose is clear and the sibling tools have distinct domains, providing implicit context for when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_sec_filingCGet one SEC filing, its entity roles, summary, and extracted facts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filing_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and state profile. The description itself adds the behavioral detail that it returns 'entity roles, summary, and extracted facts,' which is useful context about the returned payload. However, no mention of what happens if the filing_id doesn't exist, or any auth/limits. With rich annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is fair.
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?
One clear, single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No filler or redundancy. It earns its compactness despite the single-parameter tool not needing much elaboration.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are documented there. The tool is simple (1 param), has strong annotations, and an output schema. Given the simplicity, the description is reasonably complete, but it could benefit from noting that filing_id comes from search_sec_filings. Since output schema covers the response structure, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the filing_id parameter. The description mentions 'SEC filing' but doesn't explain what filing_id is, its format, or how to obtain a valid one (e.g., from search_sec_filings output). The schema only gives max/min length constraints (1-96 chars). The description adds essentially no parametric meaning beyond what the schema field name implies.
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 says 'Get one SEC filing, its entity roles, summary, and extracted facts.' This uses a specific verb (get) and names the resource (SEC filing) plus what's returned (entity roles, summary, extracted facts). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling get_* tools like get_dataset_status or get_market_snapshot, which could be confused. The 'one' hints at singular result but lacks scope context.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The sibling search_sec_filings clearly exists for discovery; this tool is likely for retrieval after a search returns a filing_id, but that connection is never stated. No alternatives are mentioned. The single-parameter signature implies you'd already know the filing_id, but the description doesn't explain that prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_servicer_analyticsCGet a servicer scorecard, vintage performance fan, or lender transfer analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gse | No | all | |
| mode | Yes | ||
| top_n | No | ||
| lender | No | ||
| vintage | No | ||
| max_points | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, fully covering safety. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, data sources), so it meets the baseline for annotation-rich tools without extra value.
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 is concise and front-loaded. However, it omits important details; conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.
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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to describe each mode's output or parameter effects, making it incomplete for effective tool 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description only implicitly connects mode to outputs. It does not explain parameters like gse, top_n, lender, vintage, or max_points, leaving their semantics unclear.
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 gets three types of servicer analytics (scorecard, performance fan, transfer analysis) aligning with the mode parameter. It is specific about the resources but does not elaborate on each mode's output, preventing a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like compare_lenders or get_lender_profile. The description lacks context for tool selection, leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_lendersCFind canonical HMDA lender keys, optionally filtered by charter, state, or volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | volume_desc | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| charter | No | ||
| min_volume | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is clear. The description adds that the tool finds keys with optional filters, but does not disclose other behaviors like result limits or sorting behavior beyond what the schema implies.
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 a single 12-word sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. However, for a tool with 6 parameters and a nondeterministic search behavior, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 complexity (6 parameters, search semantics, output schema exists but is not detailed), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'canonical HMDA lender keys' means, how filtering interacts, or how to interpret results, relying too heavily on the 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?
The schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage; the description mentions only three filters (charter, state, volume) via 'optionally filtered by charter, state, or volume'. It fails to explain 'sort', 'limit', 'query', or how 'min_volume' relates to volume, leaving significant gaps.
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 a specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource as 'canonical HMDA lender keys', making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'compare_lenders' or 'get_lender_profile', which also operate on lenders.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_lender_profile' or 'compare_lenders'. It neither states prerequisites nor gives examples of appropriate contexts, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_sec_filingsCSearch newest-first SEC filings after terminal summary processing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | ||
| form | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| ticker | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No | ||
| summary_status | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'newest-first' ordering and 'after terminal summary processing' sequencing context, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination semantics (cursor), date-range behavior, or what summary_status values do. With four strong annotations present, credit is given for the ordering/sequencing context, but it is thin.
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 very short (one clause), which is concise, but it packs in a confusing phrase ('after terminal summary processing') without explanation. It is under-specified more than efficiently concise — a single sentence that burdens the reader to decipher ambiguous terminology.
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?
This is a moderately complex search tool with 9 parameters, an output schema, and a summary_status filter. The description doesn't explain the filter semantics, pagination via cursor, or the relationship to get_sec_filing. Even with the output schema present, critical usage semantics (which statuses exist, how filtering works) are unexplained.
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 0%, and the description adds zero parameter-level meaning. With 9 parameters, including a summary_status enum, a cursor for pagination, date ranges, and search fields, the description explains none of them. The baseline would be 3 if coverage were high, but with 0% coverage the description must compensate and does not at all.
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 states 'Search newest-first SEC filings after terminal summary processing,' which names the resource (SEC filings) and the ordering (newest-first) with a specific action verb. However, it does not distinguish from sibling get_sec_filing, which retrieves filings, and the phrase 'after terminal summary processing' is ambiguous without context.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_sec_filing or search_lenders among siblings. It implies search use-case (query-based discovery) but gives no exclusions or alternatives. The 'after terminal summary processing' clue hints at a workflow context but is too vague to be actionable.
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!
