A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceScreens individuals and entities against the OIG LEIE exclusion list, returning candidate matches that require human verification.
MIT
Redra
Server Details
Search current class-action settlements and identify possible matches using structured filters.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- sacrosaunt/Redra
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- Redra MCP
Available Tools
5 toolsget_dataset_infoGet dataset informationARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return source, license, freshness, counts, and hosted aggregate metrics.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific fields returned, which is useful but does not go beyond what annotations plus output schema would imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that names all key return contents. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no params, read-only, idempotent) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description names the key data categories and is complete for this scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and names precise resource components (source, license, freshness, counts, hosted aggregate metrics). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling settlement-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. However, the description clearly implies it is for dataset metadata retrieval, and sibling names confirm it is separate from settlement operations, so usage context is indirectly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_settlementGet a settlementARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return the complete stored record and official source links for one settlement ID produced by a search.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| settlement_id | Yes | Exact settlement identifier returned by a search. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating the returned data is the 'complete stored record' and includes 'official source links,' which goes beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the core action, scope, and output without wasted words. Every phrase contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a low-complexity single-parameter retrieval, the description, rich annotations, and output schema cover everything needed for an agent to select and call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter settlement_id is already described as the 'Exact settlement identifier returned by a search.' The description reinforces this but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the complete stored record and official source links for one settlement ID produced by a search.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_settlements and get_settlements by focusing on retrieving a single, already-known settlement record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly implies usage after a search has produced a settlement ID, saying 'one settlement ID produced by a search.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the highest tier of guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_settlementsGet settlementsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Return complete stored records and official source links for up to 20 settlement IDs produced by search.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| settlement_ids | Yes | Settlement identifiers returned by search to retrieve together. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is clear. The description adds that it returns 'complete stored records and official source links', which indicates a richer response than a summary. This is useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes key constraints (up to 20 IDs). There is zero waste; every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter (fully covered by schema), strong annotations, an output schema present, and a clear description, the tool is well documented. The description explains the use case ('produced by search') and the batch limit, which is sufficient. Minor gap: it doesn't mention error behavior or what happens if an ID is invalid, but given the presence of an output schema, this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'settlement_ids' is well documented already. The description adds that these are 'produced by search' and 'to retrieve together', which reinforces the batch context, but it doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns complete stored records and official source links for up to 20 settlement IDs produced by search. The verb 'Return' is specific, the resource is 'settlements', and the scope ('up to 20') is defined. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'get_settlement' (singular), though the pluralization and 'up to 20' partially imply a batch operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says 'produced by search', which implies this tool is used after search results are obtained, providing a context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or mention alternatives like 'get_settlement' for single-record retrieval. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_settlementsSearch settlementsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search one settlement angle using logical AND keywords and structured status, type, state, proof, and deadline filters. Status defaults to open. Results include source metadata and quality flags.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum records returned, from 1 to 50. | |
| state | No | Optional two-letter US postal abbreviation, such as CA. | |
| status | No | Public lifecycle filter: open or upcoming. Defaults to open. Upcoming records are not yet claimable and must be presented as a separate watchlist. | open |
| keywords | No | Required logical-AND terms for specific companies, brands, products, employers, services, or incidents. Use separate queries for alternatives and settlement_type for taxonomy. | |
| deadline_after | No | Include deadlines on or after this ISO 8601 date. | |
| proof_required | No | Whether proof is required: yes, no, or unknown. | |
| deadline_before | No | Include deadlines on or before this ISO 8601 date. | |
| settlement_type | No | Exact settlement taxonomy filter. Prefer this over keywords for type concepts such as data breaches, privacy, refunds, financial fees, or consumer products. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description correctly focuses on additional behavior: it reveals the default status filter ('Status defaults to open') and the content of results ('Results include source metadata and quality flags'). These details go beyond the structured annotations and add value for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints, and every part adds value—scoping (one angle), filter types, default status, and result contents. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 8 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filters, default, and result summary. It does not detail response format (covered by output schema) or pagination, but those are not critical for initial selection. It adequately informs an agent about what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description reinforces the AND semantics for keywords and lists filter categories, but these are already present in the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Required logical-AND terms' for keywords). It adds little new meaning beyond the schema, placing it at the baseline for full coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action (search) on a specific resource (settlements) and adds the scoping constraint 'one settlement angle' with logical AND keywords, distinguishing it from the batch sibling search_settlements_batch. The filter categories (status, type, state, proof, deadline) are enumerated, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via 'one settlement angle' and the keyword parameter description in the schema suggests using separate queries for alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. It lacks direct exclusions or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_settlements_batchSearch settlements in a batchARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Run up to 50 independent settlement searches and deduplicate records across queries. Results include matched_query_indices, and executed_query_count reports the number of searches performed. Use when several unrelated search angles should be evaluated together.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | Independent settlement searches. Each query retains logical-AND keyword semantics; unrelated alternatives belong in separate query objects. | |
| max_total_results | No | Maximum unique settlement records returned across the whole batch after cross-query deduplication. This caps output, not the number of independent searches performed. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, openWorldHint: false. The description adds: it deduplicates records across queries Eq. and reports executed_query_count. However, it does not mention partial-failure behavior, query-level limits, or what happens when max_total_results cap is hit. With annotations carrying the read-only safety profile, the description adds moderate behavioral context (deduplication and count reporting) but not rich detail on failure modes or output shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, no fluff easchjs. Clearly explains batch capability, result metadata, and when to use. Efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch tool, the description explains the core behavioral traits (deduplication, count reporting, cap) and when to use it. It doesn't describe result structure (e.g., grouped by query) but given the input schema richness and readOnly annotations, this is a solid comprehensive description. Could mention parallel independent behavior more, but the queries array description in schema covers it. Score 4.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage of parameters is high (all params documented in schema), so description adds limited incremental value. The description clarifies that max_total_results caps output but not the number of searches, which is a useful clarification that goes slightly beyond the schema. For the queries array parameter, it already says 'Independent settlement searches' and retains the AND semantics in the schema. Description adds dedup context for results but not parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate with the slight boost for clarifying max_total_results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description accurately conveys purpose: run up to 50 settlement searches in one batch, dedupe results. It identifies the verb (search), resource (settlements), and mode (batch), clearly distinguishing itself from a single settlement search. It lacks an explicit sibling name reference, but the verb+resource+scope structure is clear enough to position it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description tells when to use: 'several search angles should be evaluated together' and the annotation 'openWorldHint: false' reinforces constrained usage. Explicitly contrasts with a single-search tool by mentioning independent queries and dedup. It does not state 'when NOT to use', but provides strong positive guidance and boundary (up to 50 queries) so an agent can decide to route batch vs single search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
- Changed
search_settlements2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / proof_required / anyOfPrevious value: -[ - { - "enum": [ - "yes", - "no", - "optional", - "varies", - "unknown" - ], - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } -]New value: +[ + { + "enum": [ + "yes", + "no", + "unknown" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } +] - changed
Input schema / properties / proof_required / descriptionPrevious value: -"Exact proof requirement: yes, no, optional, varies, or unknown."New value: +"Whether proof is required: yes, no, or unknown."
- Changed
search_settlements_batch2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / $defs / SearchQuery / properties / proof_required / anyOfPrevious value: -[ - { - "enum": [ - "yes", - "no", - "optional", - "varies", - "unknown" - ], - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } -]New value: +[ + { + "enum": [ + "yes", + "no", + "unknown" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } +] - changed
Input schema / $defs / SearchQuery / properties / proof_required / descriptionPrevious value: -"Exact proof requirement: yes, no, optional, varies, or unknown."New value: +"Whether proof is required: yes, no, or unknown."
2 tool updates
- Changed
search_settlements2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / proof_required / anyOfPrevious value: -[ - { - "enum": [ - "yes", - "no", - "optional", - "unknown" - ], - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } -]New value: +[ + { + "enum": [ + "yes", + "no", + "optional", + "varies", + "unknown" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } +] - changed
Input schema / properties / proof_required / descriptionPrevious value: -"Exact proof requirement: yes, no, optional, or unknown."New value: +"Exact proof requirement: yes, no, optional, varies, or unknown."
- Changed
search_settlements_batch2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / $defs / SearchQuery / properties / proof_required / anyOfPrevious value: -[ - { - "enum": [ - "yes", - "no", - "optional", - "unknown" - ], - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } -]New value: +[ + { + "enum": [ + "yes", + "no", + "optional", + "varies", + "unknown" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + { + "type": "null" + } +] - changed
Input schema / $defs / SearchQuery / properties / proof_required / descriptionPrevious value: -"Exact proof requirement: yes, no, optional, or unknown."New value: +"Exact proof requirement: yes, no, optional, varies, or unknown."
3 tool updates
- Changed
get_settlements1 field changed- changed
Input schema / properties / settlement_ids / descriptionPrevious value: -"Settlement identifiers to retrieve together. Use this for every finalist from a broad scan before composing the final answer."New value: +"Settlement identifiers returned by search to retrieve together."
- Changed
search_settlements3 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / keywords / descriptionPrevious value: -"Required AND terms for specific companies, brands, products, employers, or incidents. Do not put a settlement-type label here when settlement_type applies. For broad eligibility scans, make multiple separate searches covering plausible aliases, related brands, parent companies, services, purchases, fees, incidents, and eligibility-relevant demographic angles."New value: +"Required logical-AND terms for specific companies, brands, products, employers, services, or incidents. Use separate queries for alternatives and settlement_type for taxonomy." - changed
Input schema / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"Claim lifecycle: open, closed, payment, unknown, or all. Defaults to open. Use all only when intentionally including non-open lifecycle states."New value: +"Public lifecycle filter: open or upcoming. Defaults to open. Upcoming records are not yet claimable and must be presented as a separate watchlist." - changed
Input schema / properties / status / enumPrevious value: -[ - "open", - "closed", - "payment", - "unknown", - "all" -]New value: +[ + "open", + "upcoming" +]
- Changed
search_settlements_batch3 fields changed- changed
Input schema / $defs / SearchQuery / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"Claim lifecycle; defaults to open. Use all only when intentionally searching non-open lifecycle states as well."New value: +"Public lifecycle filter: open or upcoming. Defaults to open. Upcoming records are not yet claimable and belong in a separate watchlist." - changed
Input schema / $defs / SearchQuery / properties / status / enumPrevious value: -[ - "open", - "closed", - "payment", - "unknown", - "all" -]New value: +[ + "open", + "upcoming" +] - changed
Input schema / properties / queries / descriptionPrevious value: -"Independent settlement searches. Use one query object per unrelated company, product, alias, alternative term, or search angle. Keywords inside each object still use logical AND."New value: +"Independent settlement searches. Each query retains logical-AND keyword semantics; unrelated alternatives belong in separate query objects."
2 tool updates
- Changed
search_settlements4 fields changed- removed
Input schema / properties / status / anyOfRemoved value: -[ - { - "enum": [ - "open", - "closed", - "payment", - "unknown" - ], - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } -] - changed
Input schema / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"Claim lifecycle: open, closed, payment, or unknown. Defaults to open. Pass null to include every lifecycle status."New value: +"Claim lifecycle: open, closed, payment, unknown, or all. Defaults to open. Use all only when intentionally including non-open lifecycle states." - added
Input schema / properties / status / enumAdded value: +[ + "open", + "closed", + "payment", + "unknown", + "all" +] - added
Input schema / properties / status / typeAdded value: +"string"
- Changed
search_settlements_batch4 fields changed- removed
Input schema / $defs / SearchQuery / properties / status / anyOfRemoved value: -[ - { - "enum": [ - "open", - "closed", - "payment", - "unknown" - ], - "type": "string" - }, - { - "type": "null" - } -] - changed
Input schema / $defs / SearchQuery / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"Claim lifecycle; defaults to open. Use null for all statuses."New value: +"Claim lifecycle; defaults to open. Use all only when intentionally searching non-open lifecycle states as well." - added
Input schema / $defs / SearchQuery / properties / status / enumAdded value: +[ + "open", + "closed", + "payment", + "unknown", + "all" +] - added
Input schema / $defs / SearchQuery / properties / status / typeAdded value: +"string"
5 tool updates
- First observed
get_dataset_info - First observed
get_settlement - First observed
get_settlements - First observed
search_settlements - First observed
search_settlements_batch
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Related MCP Connectors
Search open US class-action settlements to claim + official free state unclaimed-money portals.
Simplified lookup of a person's or company's lawsuits from the CPF or CNPJ. Platform-hosted, no cred
Search US federal and state court records through CourtListener and the RECAP archive
Match consumer products to official CPSC recalls and purchase source-linked evidence.
Related MCP Servers
CourtAPI MCP Serverofficial
AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceSearch and retrieve US federal court cases, dockets, claims, and documents via PACER — directly from Claude and other MCP-compatible AI assistants.1036MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceFind current U.S. federal grant opportunities and return cited hard-gate and versioned award-history evidence packs. Free during the limited beta; it does not determine legal eligibility, predict awards, draft applications, or submit applications.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables searching FDA food recalls and adverse event reports through natural language, supporting filters and pagination.-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: dataset metadata, single-record retrieval, batch retrieval, single search, and batch search. No overlapping boundaries or potential for misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_dataset_info, get_settlement, get_settlements, search_settlements, search_settlements_batch). Verbs and noun plurality are used logically and consistently.
Tool Count5/5
With exactly 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its apparent purpose of settlement searching and retrieval. Each tool fills a necessary role without redundancy, making the count ideal.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface fully covers the read-only workflow: dataset-level info, targeted retrieval (single and batch), and search (single and batch). No obvious gaps for the domain, as update/create/delete operations are not implied by the server's purpose.