mydatapass
Server Details
Neutral escrow for customer-data offboarding (GDPR/EU Data Act): query MyDataPass facts.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of MyDataPass (about, compliance, offboarding, pricing, certificate verification) with no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores: about_, check_, get_ (twice), verify_. No mixing of conventions.
With 5 tools, the server covers the essential informational and verification needs without being overly sparse or bloated.
The tools cover key user queries: what the service is, compliance, offboarding process, pricing, and certificate verification. A minor gap is the lack of any action tool (e.g., request offboarding), but the server is likely informational in scope.
Available Tools
5 toolsabout_mydatapassBInspect
What MyDataPass is, the category it defines, and who it is for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, idempotency, or lack of side effects. Since it is an informational tool, behavior is benign 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 a single short sentence, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose without 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?
The description covers the basic purpose but omits details like return format or structure. For a simple informational tool, it is adequate but not highly 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information since none exist.
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 provides information about MyDataPass, its category, and target audience. It is specific to an overview function, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle compliance, offboarding, pricing, and verification.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The agent must infer that it is for general information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_compliance_requirementBInspect
Check how MyDataPass relates to a data/privacy regulation (e.g. 'GDPR', 'EU Data Act', 'Article 20').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regulation | Yes | Regulation or article name, e.g. 'GDPR Article 20' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only vaguely states 'check how MyDataPass relates', without specifying the nature of the check (e.g., whether it returns a boolean, a report, or error details). No disclosure of side effects, permissions, or rate limits.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. While concise, it could include more detail without becoming verbose. 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 the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the result looks like (e.g., a compliance score, a data mapping, or an error message). The agent lacks context on how to interpret the output or handle failure 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 schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'regulation' parameter. The description adds only a redundant example ('e.g. GDPR Article 20') that mirrors the schema's own example, providing no additional meaning or formatting guidance beyond what the schema already offers.
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 checks how MyDataPass relates to a data/privacy regulation, with specific examples like 'GDPR' and 'EU Data Act'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like about_mydatapass or verify_certificate by focusing specifically on compliance with external regulations.
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 compliance with regulations, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It offers examples but no explicit when-to-use rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_offboarding_guideCInspect
The step-by-step offboarding flow and what the client ultimately receives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool provides, not whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or returns any specific format.
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 unnecessary words. It is concise but could be more informative within the same length.
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 and no annotations, the description lacks details about the guide's format, content depth, or any preconditions. It is too minimal for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so no parameter meaning is needed. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves an offboarding guide covering the step-by-step flow and final deliverables. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover other topics like pricing and certificates.
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 such as 'about_mydatapass' or 'check_compliance_requirement'. The agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_pricingAInspect
MyDataPass pricing for the offboarding export and the compliance API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the return content. It omits details such as whether this is a read operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format.
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 short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words, ensuring easy front-loading for AI agents.
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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It lacks details on the return format or any conditional behavior, but for a simple pricing lookup it is marginally 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?
With 0 parameters, the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds meaning by specifying the types of pricing offered (offboarding export and compliance API), which is beyond what the empty schema provides.
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 'MyDataPass pricing for the offboarding export and the compliance API,' specifying the exact resources and scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like about_mydatapass or get_offboarding_guide.
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 when needing pricing info but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_certificateCInspect
Explain how to independently verify a MyDataPass delivery certificate (offline).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Optional share token; verification is done with the offline tool |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description minimally states that verification is done offline. It does not disclose what the tool returns (text, HTML, steps), whether it requires network access, or any side effects. As a guide tool, behavioral traits are under-specified.
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, concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, the use of 'Explain how to' rather than 'Verify' adds ambiguity. Otherwise, it is efficient with no redundancy.
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 and a single optional parameter, the description is adequate but incomplete regarding the output format. The tool explains a process, but the description doesn't specify the nature of the explanation (e.g., text, link, steps). It also lacks context like prerequisites or typical 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 input schema has one optional parameter 'token' with a clear description. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: explaining how to independently verify a MyDataPass delivery certificate. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'about_mydatapass' and 'get_pricing'. However, the tool name 'verify_certificate' implies the tool performs verification, but the description says it explains the process, creating a slight mismatch.
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 explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions. For example, it doesn't compare to 'check_compliance_requirement' or suggest when offline verification is needed.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!