Hosted MCP for verified B2B lead campaigns with success-only billing.
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 3.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: cost estimation, bulk lead export, campaign status, single lead retrieval, vertical listing, campaign creation, and feedback submission. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even get_campaign and get_lead are clearly separated by campaign vs. lead granularity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (estimate_cost, export_leads, get_campaign, get_lead, list_verticals, run_campaign, submit_feedback). This is a uniform and predictable naming convention.
The server has 7 tools, which is well within the ideal 3–15 range. Each tool serves a clear function in the campaign lifecycle without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain.
The server covers campaign creation (run_campaign), reading campaign status (get_campaign), lead access (get_lead, export_leads), cost estimation, and feedback. However, it lacks list_campaigns, update_campaign, and delete_campaign, which are notable gaps for managing multiple campaigns. The core workflow is usable but not a full CRUD surface.
estimate_costAInspectEstimate run cost before campaign launch (model-based estimate, not billable).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| intent | Yes | ||
| vertical | Yes | ||
| access_token | No | ||
| tenant_api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the estimate is model-based and not billable, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether it modifies state, requires specific authentication, or what happens if inputs are invalid, leaving some transparency gaps.
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 with no filler, immediately stating the tool's purpose and a key behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It does not explain parameter relationships, required inputs, or how the output schema is populated, so it falls short of complete 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?
The description provides no information about the parameters 'intent', 'vertical', 'count', 'access_token', or 'tenant_api_key'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, making it difficult for an agent to correctly populate these fields.
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 'Estimate' with the object 'run cost' and specifies the timing 'before campaign launch', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_campaign. It also notes it's a model-based estimate and not billable, reinforcing the 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?
The description clearly states the context 'before campaign launch', indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would have earned a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
export_leadsBInspectExport campaign leads as JSON or CSV payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| format | No | json | |
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| access_token | No | ||
| tenant_api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions formats but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements (access_token, tenant_api_key), or behavior around limit and pagination. The word 'export' hints at a read operation, but critical behavioral context is missing.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and object. It contains no filler, fluff, or repetitions, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and the description provides only a minimal overview. It fails to mention required parameters, authentication, or default behaviors, making it incomplete for effective selection and invocation. The description does not take advantage of the output schema to provide additional context.
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. It only adds meaning for 'format' (JSON/CSV) and implicitly for 'campaign_id' (campaign leads), leaving limit, access_token, and tenant_api_key entirely unexplained. The description does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Export campaign leads as JSON or CSV payload' clearly states a specific verb (export) and resource (campaign leads), and explicitly mentions the output formats. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_lead (single lead) and get_campaign (campaign details), making the purpose unmistakable.
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 bulk exporting leads, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_lead or run_campaign. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the usage context is only implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_campaignAInspectRead campaign status with optional leads + scorecard (progressive disclosure).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| leads_limit | No | ||
| access_token | No | ||
| include_leads | No | ||
| tenant_api_key | No | ||
| include_scorecard | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation, which implies non-destructive behavior, and mentions progressive disclosure as a design trait. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'progressive disclosure' precisely entails.
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 that is front-loaded and concise. Every word contributes to the overview, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.
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?
While an output schema exists and the tool is a simple read operation, the description is sparse. It does not clarify the role of auth parameters or the exact meaning of progressive disclosure. Sibling tools and parameter count suggest more context is needed for correct invocation, but the description remains minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only minimally compensates by mentioning optional leads and scorecard. It does not explain campaign_id, access_token, tenant_api_key, or leads_limit, leaving several parameters without semantic context beyond their 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 tool reads campaign status, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also mentions optional leads and scorecard, distinguishing it from siblings like get_lead (single lead) and run_campaign (executes campaigns).
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 phrase 'progressive disclosure' implies a usage pattern of starting with this tool and then drilling down, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use get_campaign versus get_lead or export_leads. Usage context is implied but not clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_leadCInspectFetch one lead with evidence by scanning campaign leads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lead_id | Yes | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| access_token | No | ||
| tenant_api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that the tool fetches a lead with evidence, but does not explain what happens if the lead is not found, whether it requires specific authentication, or if any side effects occur. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation but not explicitly.
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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the brevity contributes to the under-specification seen in other dimensions.
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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool is under-specified. An output schema exists but is not exposed here. The description omits critical details such as return format, error handling, and authentication requirements, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly in many 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate for this. It does not explain the purpose of any parameter, including access_token and tenant_api_key. The names campaign_id and lead_id are self-explanatory, but the description adds no value beyond them.
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 ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('one lead'), with additional context ('with evidence by scanning campaign leads') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign. However, 'evidence' is ambiguous and the exact mechanism is unclear.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The context is only implied by the tool name and the brief phrase about scanning campaign leads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_verticalsCInspectList currently exposed vertical slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| access_token | No | ||
| tenant_api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List currently exposed vertical slugs' without mentioning authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied but 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 one short sentence with no filler, efficiently communicating the core purpose. However, it is under-specified, which limits its usefulness despite being concise.
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 two undocumented parameters and absence of annotations, the description is too thin for correct invocation. The output schema may cover return values, but the lack of parameter semantics and usage context makes the description 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 coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about access_token or tenant_api_key. It fails to explain their purpose, whether they are required, or how authentication works, leaving the agent without necessary context for invocation.
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 'List' with the resource 'vertical slugs', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on campaigns, leads, costs, and feedback, and 'currently exposed' adds scope precision.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
run_campaignBInspectCreate a campaign and return campaign_id + first telemetry snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| intent | Yes | ||
| options | No | ||
| vertical | No | yc_devtools | |
| access_token | No | ||
| tenant_api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the mutation side effect ('Create') and the return value, but it omits any information about authentication requirements, side effects beyond creation, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to stating the core purpose. However, it is arguably too brief given the tool's complexity, though this is more a completeness concern than a conciseness one.
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 has 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations. The description only covers the main action and return value, leaving parameter semantics, usage context, and operational details entirely unexplained. The presence of an output schema helps for return values but does not address the missing input 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 6 parameters (intent, count, options, vertical, access_token, tenant_api_key). The description only mentions return values, not what each input does, so it completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 ('Create') with a clear resource ('a campaign') and explicitly states the return value ('campaign_id + first telemetry snapshot'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign, which is a read operation.
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 the tool is for creating campaigns, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no reference to sibling tools or when another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_feedbackCInspectSubmit user feedback for model improvement loop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| rating | Yes | ||
| lead_id | Yes | ||
| campaign_id | No | ||
| access_token | No | ||
| tenant_api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a write action but omits side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, or response behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate impact.
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 that front-loads the verb and is appropriately brief. It is not padded, but it sacrifices potentially valuable context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given six parameters, including auth fields, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how feedback relates to leads/campaigns, what ratings mean, or the expected workflow, leaving critical ambiguities.
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 mentions no parameters. With six parameters, including sensitive ones like access_token and tenant_api_key, the agent receives no help understanding what to pass. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Submit user feedback' and its purpose ('for model improvement loop'). It uses a specific verb and resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name, which 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., needing lead_id or rating), or how it relates to sibling tools like get_lead or run_campaign.
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!
