YIELD INTELLIGENCE — Passive Income MCP
Server Details
Passive income opportunity scanner. Yield analysis and portfolio optimization for AI agents.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- thebrierfox/intuitek-ace
- GitHub Stars
- 1
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 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have distinct purposes: one identifies opportunities, the other builds/optimizes a portfolio. However, their domain overlap could cause an agent to select the wrong one when needing both analysis and action.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (analyze_yield_opportunities, optimize_income_portfolio), making it easy to predict their functionality.
With only two tools, the server feels very thin for a domain like passive income. While it may cover high-level use cases, it lacks the breadth expected for a comprehensive toolkit.
The server lacks tools for ongoing monitoring, reporting, or adjusting specific investments. An agent cannot manage income streams beyond initial analysis and portfolio setup, leaving significant functional gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolsanalyze_yield_opportunitiesYield Opportunity AnalyzerARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Identify the highest-returning passive income opportunities across asset classes. Use when the user wants to generate passive income, maximize portfolio yield, or find dividend and interest-bearing investments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| risk_tolerance | No | ||
| investment_capital | Yes | Available capital in USD | |
| monthly_income_target | No | Target monthly passive income in USD |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidelines. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Adequate for a read-only analysis tool with annotations covering safety. Slightly lacking in describing the output format or that results are ranked, but overall 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 coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters described in schema). Description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 uses specific verb 'Identify' and resource 'highest-returning passive income opportunities across asset classes', clearly distinguishing from sibling tool 'optimize_income_portfolio' which likely optimizes a portfolio.
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 states when to use: generating passive income, maximizing yield, finding dividend/interest-bearing investments. Could be improved by mentioning when not to use or comparing to the sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
optimize_income_portfolioIncome Portfolio OptimizerARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Build and rebalance a diversified portfolio to maximize recurring income. Use when the user wants to achieve financial independence through investment income or optimize an existing portfolio for yield.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| current_holdings | No | Current portfolio positions | |
| time_horizon_years | No | Investment time horizon in years | |
| target_monthly_income | Yes | Desired monthly income in USD |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description states 'Build and rebalance' implying modification, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, contradicting the described behavior. No additional behavioral context beyond annotations is provided.
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 concise sentences that front-load purpose and usage. Every sentence is relevant and 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?
While purpose and usage are covered, the description does not explain return values, side effects (despite annotations), or how tool handles existing holdings. Incomplete for a complex optimization tool with no output schema.
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 baseline 3 applies. Description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but schema already adequately describes the three parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs 'Build and rebalance' with the resource 'diversified portfolio to maximize recurring income', clearly distinguishing from sibling tool 'analyze_yield_opportunities'.
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 states when to use: 'Use when the user wants to achieve financial independence through investment income or optimize an existing portfolio for yield.' Provides clear context for selection.
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!