Kiwify digital-products platform, sales (list, detail), subscriptions (list, cancel), products and a
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 3.7/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: kiwify_sales_get and kiwify_sales_list have identical descriptions, as do kiwify_subscriptions_get and kiwify_subscriptions_list. An agent cannot easily distinguish which tool to use for listing vs getting details. Additionally, generic tools like marketplace, report_bug, and show_version are mixed with Kiwify-specific tools, creating ambiguity about the server's domain.
Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some use kiwify_ prefix with nouns (kiwify_products) or verb_noun (kiwify_list_accounts), and the sales/subscriptions pairs split get/list into separate tools. The naming is chaotic and lacks a predictable convention.
With 14 tools, the count is within the typical range, but the number is inflated by duplicate tools (sales and subscriptions each have separate get and list variants). Effective distinct functionality is lower, and generic platform tools add to the count without contributing to the Kiwify domain.
The tool surface covers reading affiliates, accounts, products, sales, and subscriptions, but lacks essential write operations like creating or updating sales, products, or subscriptions (only cancellation is available). Significant gaps exist for a complete lifecycle, and there are no tools for refunds or modifications likely needed in a commerce platform.
authenticateAMCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds behavioral details (session vs permanent, non-expiring connection) without contradiction.
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 yet packed with necessary information, front-loading the purpose and logically structuring the two authentication methods.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers main use cases. It could mention error handling but is adequate.
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 0%, but the description fully explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT string and describes behavior with and without it, compensating for the schema gap.
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 explicitly states it is for logging in via browser and obtaining an access token, with two distinct methods: permanent config or session token. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'connect'.
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 clear usage scenarios: permanent setup via config header or session login by passing token, and calling with no args to get a link. It lacks explicit exclusions but offers sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
connectAReturns connection status and URLs. When all providers are connected, returns authenticated:true and empty pending[]. When credentials are missing, returns connect_url for the toolkit and per-install URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by explaining return values in different states (connected vs missing credentials), which is beyond what annotations provide. 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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core function, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides useful 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 no output schema, the description covers two main states (connected and missing credentials). However, it omits possible intermediate or error states, which could be relevant for a status tool. Still, it provides adequate completeness for most use cases.
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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info, meeting the baseline of 4 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 explicitly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, with specific details on two states: all providers connected (authenticated:true, empty pending[]) and credentials missing (connect_url). This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like authenticate.
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 for checking connection status, but does not explicitly state when to use versus siblings like authenticate or marketplace. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kiwify_affiliatesALista afiliados do creator na Kiwify (filtros opcionais: status, page_size, page).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the specific resource (affiliates) and optional filters, providing useful context 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 a single sentence, front-loads the main action and resource, and efficiently lists optional filters with 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 four parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description does not explain the 'account' parameter, default behaviors, or result format, leaving significant gaps.
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%. The description mentions three of four parameters (status, page_size, page) but omits 'account', leaving it unexplained. This partial coverage is insufficient.
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 lists affiliates of a creator on Kiwify, with optional filters. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like sales or products.
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 through optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kiwify_list_accountsBLista contas Kiwify (creators) vinculadas a este install — id, label e apelido.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the install-scoping context but does not disclose additional behaviors such as rate limits or error conditions, which is acceptable given the 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 a single sentence, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and output fields with 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?
The description adequately covers the output fields (id, label, apelido) and scope, but fails to explain the optional parameter, which limits completeness for a simple tool with one user input.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the single 'account' parameter. It provides no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess its role (e.g., optional filter or required input).
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 (Lista), resource (contas Kiwify/creators), and scope (vinculadas a este install), and lists the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kiwify_affiliates and kiwify_products.
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 alternatives. The description only states what it does, without providing context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kiwify_productsBLista produtos do creator na Kiwify (filtros opcionais: page_size, page).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it lists products with optional filters, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no filters provided. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence of 13 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could include more useful information (like the account parameter) without becoming verbose.
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 list operation with safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and optional filters. However, it fails to mention the 'account' parameter and provides no hints about the return structure or pagination behavior. This leaves the description slightly incomplete.
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%, meaning the description must add meaning beyond parameter names. The description mentions page_size and page as optional filters but does not explain their semantics (e.g., default values, range). Moreover, it omits the 'account' parameter entirely, leaving it undocumented. This is insufficient compensation for the low coverage.
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 it lists creator products on Kiwify with optional filters. While it identifies the resource (produtos, products) and action (Lista, list), it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kiwify_affiliates or kiwify_sales_list, but the resource type is distinct enough.
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 only mentions that page_size and page are optional filters. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., kiwify_sales_list for sales), no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kiwify_sales_getALeitura de vendas na Kiwify. Ações:
list: lista vendas (filtros: start_date/end_date YYYY-MM-DD, product_id, status, page_size, page).
get: detalhe de UMA venda (requer sale_id). Retorna os dados crus da Kiwify.
[Flattened action: get]
Bulk support: accepts sale_ids, product_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| sale_id | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| sale_ids | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| product_id | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| product_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns raw data from Kiwify and supports bulk execution, but does not disclose potential side effects or authentication requirements beyond what is implied.
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 and structured with bullet points for actions. It front-loads the purpose and includes only necessary information. The '[Flattened action: get]' note adds slight confusion but does not significantly impact clarity.
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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main functionalities and most parameters. However, it omits explanation of the 'account' parameter and does not describe the output structure or pagination details beyond page_size and page.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining parameters for list (start_date, end_date, product_id, status, page_size, page) and get (sale_id), plus bulk support (sale_ids, product_ids). However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned, and some format details are missing.
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 is for reading sales from Kiwify, listing two actions (list and get) with specific parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'kiwify_sales_list', which may cause confusion.
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 when to use list vs get (list for listing, get for single sale with sale_id), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like kiwify_sales_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kiwify_sales_listBLeitura de vendas na Kiwify. Ações:
list: lista vendas (filtros: start_date/end_date YYYY-MM-DD, product_id, status, page_size, page).
get: detalhe de UMA venda (requer sale_id). Retorna os dados crus da Kiwify.
[Flattened action: list]
Bulk support: accepts sale_ids, product_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| sale_id | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| sale_ids | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| product_id | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| product_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns raw data and supports bulk execution with sale_ids and product_ids, providing useful behavioral context 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 mixes languages and includes redundant elements like the flattened action note. While structured, it could be more concise and focused.
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 10 parameters lacking schema descriptions and no output schema, the description should provide more completeness. It lacks explanation of account, status values, pagination behavior, and limits. The dual-action description may cause confusion given the sibling 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates partially. It explains start_date/end_date format, mentions filters like product_id, status, page_size, page, and bulk parameters. However, it omits explanation for account parameter and does not detail every parameter.
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 it reads sales on Kiwify and lists actions: list and get. It specifies the resource and verbs. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool kiwify_sales_get, which likely performs a similar get action.
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 alternatives like kiwify_sales_get. It mentions list vs get actions but does not compare to sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kiwify_subscriptions_getCLeitura de assinaturas na Kiwify. Ações:
list: lista assinaturas (filtros: product_id, status, page_size, page).
get: detalhe de UMA assinatura (requer subscription_id).
[Flattened action: get]
Bulk support: accepts subscription_ids, product_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| product_id | No | ||
| product_ids | No | ||
| subscription_id | No | ||
| subscription_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. Description adds two-action behavior but lacks details on pagination, ordering, or error handling beyond what annotations imply.
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?
Description is brief with sections; efficient use of words, though 'Flattened action: get' may confuse.
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?
No output schema; description does not explain return values for list vs get, pagination details, or parameter formats (e.g., how to specify dates?). Missing completeness for a dual-action 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?
With 0% schema coverage, description explains several parameters in context (product_id, status, page_size, page, subscription_id, bulk ids) but omits 'account' parameter 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?
Description states reading subscriptions with list and get actions, but the tool name suggests only get. It is somewhat clear but does not differentiate from sibling 'kiwify_subscriptions_list' tool.
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 context for list vs get filters but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'kiwify_subscriptions_list' or 'kiwify_subscriptions_write_cancel'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kiwify_subscriptions_listBLeitura de assinaturas na Kiwify. Ações:
list: lista assinaturas (filtros: product_id, status, page_size, page).
get: detalhe de UMA assinatura (requer subscription_id).
[Flattened action: list]
Bulk support: accepts subscription_ids, product_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| product_id | No | ||
| product_ids | No | ||
| subscription_id | No | ||
| subscription_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool supports batched execution via subscription_ids and product_ids, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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 at ~70 words, but its structure mixes a general statement, action list, flattened action note, and bulk capability in a somewhat disjointed manner. It is not verbose but could be more logically organized.
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 8 parameters, no output schema, and a moderately complex behavior (dual actions, bulk support), the description lacks details on pagination, return format, error handling, and the exact relationship between list/get actions. It does not fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly in varied contexts.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for 7 of 8 parameters (product_id, status, page_size, page, subscription_id, subscription_ids, product_ids) by grouping them under list/get and bulk. However, it omits the 'account' parameter and does not specify value formats or enumerations for status.
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 'Leitura de assinaturas na Kiwify' (reading subscriptions in Kiwify), clearly indicating a read operation. It lists two actions (list, get) but specifies that the flattened action is 'list', making the primary purpose listing subscriptions. The sibling tool 'kiwify_subscriptions_get' exists, so the tool's role is 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?
The description mentions filters for 'list' (product_id, status, page_size, page) and for 'get' (subscription_id), implying when to use each action. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the sibling 'kiwify_subscriptions_get' or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
kiwify_subscriptions_write_cancelBInspectMutações em assinaturas Kiwify. Ações:
cancel: cancela UMA assinatura (subscription_id).
[Flattened action: cancel]
Bulk support: accepts subscription_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| subscription_id | Yes | ||
| subscription_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates cancellation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as reversibility, side effects, or authorization needs. Annotations show destructiveHint=false, which may contradict the nature of cancellation, though not explicitly stated.
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 yet includes essential elements (action, bulk support). The structure is slightly fragmented but still efficient.
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 and lack of output schema, the description fails to cover return values, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains subscription_id and subscription_ids for bulk, but omits account entirely. This adds partial value but leaves a gap.
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 cancels subscriptions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like kiwify_subscriptions_get and list. The verb 'cancel' and resource 'subscription' are explicit.
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 mentions single and bulk cancellation, providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or offer alternatives compared to similar write actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
marketplaceAInspectThe official mcp.ai marketplace — the in-platform catalog of every MCP/tool, AND the way to run them. Covers capability requests like "find an MCP that does X", "consulta um CPF", "is there a tool for Y". Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs by intent → describe returns one MCP's full profile (every tool with its id + params, pricing, auth) so you pick the right tool_id → invoke RUNS that tool. KEY: invoke works even when the MCP is NOT installed — it runs the tool pontualmente (one-off), without adding the MCP to the toolkit and without bloating the tool list. If the MCP needs a credential/login, invoke returns a connect link; if it is paid and the wallet is empty, invoke returns a checkout/top-up link (the user opens it, then you retry). Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT in the active toolkit (its tools then show up natively in future sessions); prefer invoke for a single/occasional use. list_tools lists what is callable right now. subscribe/cancel handle per-MCP billing; report_bug sends feedback; request_mcp asks us to build a NEW MCP when nothing fits. Search/describe flag installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace. Writes (install/uninstall/subscribe/cancel and the one-off install behind invoke) require workspace owner/admin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| action | No | search | |
| mcp_id | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| tool_id | No | ||
| arguments | No | {} | |
| immediate | No | ||
| tier_slug | No | ||
| conversation | No | [] | |
| request_name | No | ||
| cancel_reason | No | ||
| cancel_comment | No | ||
| report_context | No | ||
| request_details | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true, etc.), the description discloses key behavioral traits: invoke works without installing, returns connect/checkout links for missing credentials/payment, and writes require workspace owner/admin. It explains the one-off execution model and the permission requirement, adding significant context beyond what annotations alone convey.
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 dense block but well-structured: it opens with a clear core purpose, then presents a numbered core flow, followed by 'KEY:' for critical invariant behavior, then usage guidance, then a list of auxiliary actions. While long, it's front-loaded with the most important information and every sentence adds value. A bit more paragraphing could improve scannability.
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 tool with 15 optional params, no output schema, and 11 distinct actions, this description is remarkably complete. It covers discovery, invocation, installation privileges, billing flows, error conditions (missing credentials/empty wallet), and fallback actions. The agent has enough context to select the right action and parameters even without an 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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the semantics of the central 'action' parameter and its values (search, describe, install, invoke, etc.). It clarifies the relationships between tool_id (from describe) and arguments (the params). However, it does not explicitly address parameters like limit, immediate, tier_slug, or cancel_reason, leaving some gaps for the agent to infer.
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 this is the official mcp.ai marketplace: the catalog of every MCP/tool and the way to run them. It has a specific verb (discover/run) and resource (MCPs), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (kiwify_* etc.) by being the central hub. The core flow (search → describe → invoke) further clarifies its role.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Core flow: action=search discovers MCPs → describe returns profile → invoke RUNS that tool.' It also distinguishes invoke vs install ('Use install only to make an MCP PERMANENT... prefer invoke for a single/occasional use') and mentions request_mcp as a fallback when nothing fits. It even covers credential/payment edge cases and when list_tools is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
report_bugAReport a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| conversation | No | [] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. Description adds the reproduction instruction but no further behavioral context (e.g., side effects, ticket creation).
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 efficient sentences. First front-loads purpose, second adds critical guidance. No waste.
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 feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic function but omits specifics about the required 'message' parameter and any confirmation response.
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%. Only the 'conversation' parameter receives partial explanation via the instruction; 'message' (required) and 'context' are not described.
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 reports bugs, missing features, or feedback. Distinct from all sibling tools which are operational or data-retrieval focused.
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?
Tells when to use (report bugs/feedback) and gives instruction to include conversation array. No explicit when-not, but no alternatives exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
show_versionAShow the current MCP platform and adapter versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what versions are shown (platform and adapter), providing context 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is optimally concise and 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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully communicates the tool's purpose, though it could optionally mention the expected output format, but this is not a critical gap.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100%, and no parameter information is needed in the 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 that the tool shows 'the current MCP platform and adapter versions', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which serve a similar purpose.
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?
Usage is self-evident for a simple informational tool with no parameters. The description does not mention alternatives, but no exclusions are needed given the straightforward purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
toolkit_infoAReturns the current toolkit state: installed MCPs, their connection status, and how many catalog tools each exposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds what exactly it returns, providing complementary behavioral context without contradiction.
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, succinct, and front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant or unnecessary 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 informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns. Complete within its scope.
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 provides no parameter info as none are needed. Baseline score of 4 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 returns toolkit state with specific details (installed MCPs, connection status, catalog tool counts), differentiating it from sibling tools that perform specific actions like authenticate or connect.
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 context (checking toolkit state) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. However, given the distinct purpose, it is clear enough.
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!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.