RevoGrid MCP
Server Details
Hosted MCP server for RevoGrid docs, examples, feature checks, and migration guidance.
- 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 2.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
The tools have distinct primary purposes: find_examples targets runnable/live examples, get_migration_notes focuses on version upgrades, resolve_feature_matrix checks feature existence and Pro status, and search_revogrid_docs covers broader documentation. However, there is some potential overlap between find_examples and search_revogrid_docs, as the latter includes examples in its scope, which could cause minor confusion.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., find_examples, get_migration_notes, resolve_feature_matrix, search_revogrid_docs), all using snake_case. The only minor deviation is that search_revogrid_docs includes the product name, but this does not break the overall consistency, as the naming remains readable and predictable.
With 4 tools, the count is appropriate for a documentation and support server, covering key areas like examples, migration, features, and general docs. It is slightly lean but reasonable, as each tool addresses a distinct need without feeling overly sparse or bloated for the apparent scope of RevoGrid assistance.
The tool set covers documentation search, examples, migration notes, and feature resolution, which are core for a support server. However, there are notable gaps, such as lack of tools for direct API interactions (e.g., create or manipulate grid instances), troubleshooting, or community resources, limiting the surface for comprehensive RevoGrid workflows.
Available Tools
4 toolsfind_examplesFind RevoGrid ExamplesCInspect
Search runnable or live RevoGrid examples only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| surface | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| framework | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for examples but doesn't describe what 'runnable or live' means operationally, how results are returned, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any error conditions. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.
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 with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, return values, or behavioral characteristics needed for effective tool use. The description works well as a high-level summary but fails to provide the detailed context required for this moderately complex search 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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'runnable or live RevoGrid examples' which hints at the 'query' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain the meaning of 'surface', 'version', 'framework', or 'limit' parameters. With 5 parameters (2 with enums) and no schema descriptions, this minimal parameter guidance is inadequate.
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 purpose: 'Search runnable or live RevoGrid examples only.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('RevoGrid examples'), with the qualifier 'runnable or live' providing useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_revogrid_docs' or 'resolve_feature_matrix', which likely search different types of content.
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 minimal usage guidance. It implies this tool is for finding examples rather than documentation or other content, but doesn't specify when to use it versus the sibling tools. No explicit alternatives, exclusions, or contextual prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent with little guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_migration_notesGet Migration NotesCInspect
Get upgrade notes between RevoGrid versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| framework | No | ||
| toVersion | Yes | ||
| fromVersion | Yes |
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 states the tool retrieves upgrade notes, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity of version migration queries, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It should explain return formats, error handling, or usage nuances to compensate for the lack of structured data.
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 implies parameters for version ranges ('between RevoGrid versions'), which aligns with the required 'fromVersion' and 'toVersion' in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters total, it doesn't explain the optional 'framework' parameter or provide details beyond basic inference, resulting in a baseline score.
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 'Get' and the resource 'upgrade notes between RevoGrid versions', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_revogrid_docs', which might also retrieve documentation-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_revogrid_docs' or 'resolve_feature_matrix'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_feature_matrixResolve RevoGrid FeatureCInspect
Resolve whether a RevoGrid feature exists, whether it is Pro, and where to learn it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | ||
| framework | No | ||
| featureName | Yes |
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states what information will be resolved (existence, Pro status, learning location) but doesn't describe how the tool behaves: no mention of response format, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity.
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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral traits, or return values. While concise, it fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to effectively use this tool beyond basic purpose 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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'featureName' (the required parameter) but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid feature name. It doesn't mention the optional 'version' and 'framework' parameters at all, leaving their purpose and usage completely undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('resolve whether...exists', 'whether it is Pro', 'where to learn it') and identifies the resource ('RevoGrid feature'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on feature resolution rather than examples, migration notes, or documentation search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings in the description text itself.
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 the sibling tools (find_examples, get_migration_notes, search_revogrid_docs). There's no mention of prerequisites, alternative scenarios, or exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_revogrid_docsSearch RevoGrid DocsCInspect
Search docs, API reference, examples, and migration notes for RevoGrid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| surface | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| docTypes | No | ||
| framework | No | ||
| requiresPro | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is searchable without mentioning how results are returned, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a search tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, result formats, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate this tool effectively.
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 by explaining parameters. It lists content types (docs, API reference, etc.) but doesn't map them to specific parameters like 'docTypes' or 'surface', nor does it clarify the purpose of other parameters (e.g., 'framework', 'requiresPro'). The description adds minimal value beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Search') and the target resource ('docs, API reference, examples, and migration notes for RevoGrid'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (find_examples, get_migration_notes, resolve_feature_matrix), which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. It mentions what content is searchable but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.
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!