bt-reseller
Server Details
MCP server for the Netify Reseller Programme: eligibility, commission, application URL builder.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- netifymarketplace/bt-reseller-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 3.8/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: building a form URL, checking eligibility, estimating commission, retrieving product/programme information, listing compliance requirements and products, and submitting an application. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., build_application_url, check_eligibility, list_products) using snake_case, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 8 tools, the server covers the essential phases of the BT reseller process—eligibility, product exploration, commission estimation, compliance, application form building, and submission—without being under- or over-scoped.
The tool surface covers the full reseller application journey from eligibility to submission. A minor gap is the lack of an application status check or update tool, but the core lifecycle is well-supported.
Available Tools
8 toolsbuild_application_urlAInspect
Construct a prefilled URL for the Netify BT-Authorised Reseller application form. Returns the URL plus recommended next steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Primary contact email | ||
| phone | No | Primary contact phone (optional) | |
| route | No | BT channel route | auth-reseller |
| company | Yes | Legal company name | |
| contact | Yes | Primary contact full name | |
| utm_source | No | Referrer or agent identifier for attribution (optional) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the tool returns a URL and next steps, implying no side effects or destructive actions. However, with no annotations, it doesn't disclose potential limitations like authentication or rate limits, but the simple read-only nature is sufficiently transparent.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and output without any redundant words or information. It is efficiently 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?
For a simple URL-construction tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the return value (URL plus next steps) and the tool's role in the application flow, requiring no 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'prefilled URL', but that is already clear from parameter descriptions. 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 constructs a prefilled URL for a specific form (Netify BT-Authorised Reseller application). It specifies the action (construct), resource (URL), and context (application form), distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_application or check_eligibility.
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 preparatory URL generation before submission, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like submit_application. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_eligibilityAInspect
Score a prospective reseller against the five BT-Authorised Reseller dimensions. Returns eligible flag, score 0-100, blockers and recommended next steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| business_type | No | Free-text description of the business (MSP, IT Consultant, Telco, EPOS, etc.). Used for next-step recommendations. | |
| is_uk_limited_company | Yes | Is the applicant a UK-registered Limited Company in good standing? | |
| has_custom_domain_website | Yes | Does the applicant have a website on a custom domain (not free hosting/social-only)? | |
| has_defined_route_to_market | Yes | Does the applicant have a defined sales motion (existing customer base, vertical specialism, established channel)? | |
| has_business_email_on_domain | Yes | Does the applicant use a business email on that domain (not gmail/outlook personal)? | |
| has_dedicated_physical_workspace | Yes | Does the applicant have a photographable working environment fit for business calls (not bedroom, kitchen or shared hot desk)? |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies return values (eligible flag, score, blockers, next steps) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. The description is adequate but not richly transparent.
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 sentences total: first defines purpose and key output, second enumerates returns. No filler words, front-loaded with essential 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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main return types and dimensions. However, it lacks explanation of scoring logic or blocker criteria, which could be relevant for interpretation.
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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond listing the dimensions and noting that business_type is used for recommendations. 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?
Explicitly states the tool scores a reseller against five defined dimensions and lists the return values (eligible flag, score, blockers, next steps). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are about building applications or listing 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 use for evaluating reseller eligibility but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
estimate_commissionAInspect
Return a qualitative monthly and annual run-rate commission estimate for a given sales mix. Returns ranges and formula descriptions; exact rates are confirmed per signed Netify reseller agreement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| badr_devices | No | Total BADR devices under management | |
| cve_installs_per_month | No | New Cloud Voice Express installs per month | |
| sase_annual_revenue_gbp | No | Expected annual SASE revenue (£) | |
| btnet_annual_revenue_gbp | No | Expected annual BTnet leased-line revenue (£) | |
| sdwan_annual_revenue_gbp | No | Expected annual SD-WAN revenue (£) | |
| broadband_installs_per_month | No | New FTTP/SoGEA installs per month |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses output is qualitative (ranges and formulas) and non-binding. Without annotations, it provides useful behavioral context about approximation, though no details on idempotency or permissions.
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 sentences with no fluff. First sentence defines action and output, second adds critical caveat. Well-structured 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?
Describes output nature (ranges and formulas) but doesn't specify return format or behavior with missing inputs. Adequate for a simple estimation tool, but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 6 parameters clearly. Description adds 'sales mix' context but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns a qualitative monthly and annual run-rate commission estimate for a given sales mix, with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like check_eligibility and submit_application.
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?
Implies use for preliminary estimates only, as exact rates come from signed agreement. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but context from siblings provides some guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_productBInspect
Return full details for a specific BT resellable product.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_key | Yes | Product key. fttp=Full Fibre, sogea=SoGEA broadband, cve=Cloud Voice Express, badr=Business Antivirus Detect & Respond, btnet=BT Leased Lines, sdwan=Managed SD-WAN, sase=SASE Cybersecurity |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states it returns full details, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or any potential side effects.
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 extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'full details' includes, the format of the response, or any edge cases, leaving the agent with insufficient information for 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with enum values already describing each option. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 that the tool returns full details for a specific BT resellable product, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_products (which likely lists products) and check_eligibility (which checks eligibility).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or direct users to sibling tools for different purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_programme_infoAInspect
Return static metadata about the Netify BT-Authorised Reseller Programme: route, fees, sales targets, onboarding length, partner organisation, contact details.
| 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 burden. It states 'static metadata,' clearly indicating a read-only operation with no side effects. This is sufficient for a simple query tool.
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, direct sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise but could be slightly improved with structuring (e.g., bullets) for readability.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the information needed: it enumerates what metadata is returned. There are no gaps given the simplicity.
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 with 100% schema coverage (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter info; baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns static metadata about a specific programme, listing specific content types (route, fees, sales targets, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_product or check_eligibility.
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 static programme metadata is needed but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_compliance_requirementsAInspect
Return the compliance checks BT performs on prospective resellers (physical workspace audit, brand asset sourcing rules, Ofcom General Conditions C1.6 and C5.16).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, 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?
Single sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the key action and examples.
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?
Adequately describes the content but omits the return format (e.g., list of strings or objects), which would help the agent fully understand output.
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 (schema coverage 100%), so baseline 4 applies; the description adds no extra param info, but none is needed.
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 compliance checks and enumerates examples (physical workspace audit, brand asset sourcing rules, Ofcom conditions), making the purpose very clear.
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 check_eligibility; usage is only implied by the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_productsAInspect
List the BT Business products available for resale via Netify. Optionally filter by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category filter |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a list operation (likely read-only) but does not mention any pagination, caching, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The lack of behavioral context is a gap.
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 consists of two sentences: first conveying the main purpose, second mentioning the optional filter. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous 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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema). While the description covers the basic purpose, it lacks details about what fields are returned in the list, whether results are paginated, or if there are any limits. For a listing tool, this information could be useful.
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 100% (the only parameter 'category' has a description in the schema). The description adds the phrase 'Optionally filter by category,' which somewhat reinforces the schema but does not provide significant new meaning. Baseline 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 lists BT Business products available for resale via Netify, with an optional category filter. This is specific, uses a clear verb ("List"), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like "get_product" by indicating a listing versus detail retrieval.
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 browsing products but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use "get_product" for a specific product). There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_applicationAInspect
Submit a Reseller of BT Business with Netify application. Sends the applicant details to support@netify.com so a Netify team member can follow up. Use when the user has confirmed they want to apply. Reply-To is set to the applicant so support staff can reply with one click.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Primary contact email - Netify will reply here | ||
| notes | No | Free-text context: business type, sectors, customer base, expected sales mix, anything Netify should know. | |
| phone | No | Primary contact phone (optional) | |
| company | Yes | Legal company name (UK Limited Company) | |
| contact | Yes | Primary contact full name | |
| eligibility_summary | No | Optional summary of the applicant eligibility status (e.g. from check_eligibility output) so Netify can prepare for the follow-up. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool sends an email to support@netify.com with Reply-To set to the applicant, and that a team member follows up. This goes beyond basic function by revealing the human-driven process.
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?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no fluff: action, internal process, and usage guidance. Every sentence 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?
For a submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and outcome (email sent). Could mention prerequisites like prior eligibility check, but overall sufficient.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond general reference to 'applicant details', so baseline 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 submits a Reseller application for BT Business with Netify by sending details to support@netify.com. It distinguishes from siblings like check_eligibility and build_application_url by focusing on the final submission step.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use when the user has confirmed they want to apply', providing clear context but no explicit alternatives or exclusions for other scenarios.
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!