gateway
Server Details
Find and call the right MCP server for any task - pay per use, no install.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- toolhail/toolbroker
- 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 2.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
The two tools have distinct names and purposes (calling vs finding), but 'find_mcp_server' lacks a description, which could cause ambiguity about its exact function. Still, they are clearly different tools.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case ('call_tool', 'find_mcp_server'), making naming predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a gateway with complex functionality (guards, billing, limits). However, it may be intentionally minimal, so it's borderline.
The server covers core proxy and discovery operations, but lacks tools for managing guard rules (allowed/blocked lists, argument limits) dynamically, which agents may need.
Available Tools
2 toolscall_toolAInspect
Proxy one tool call to a discovered remote MCP server (paid). Every call passes pre-execution guards before anything runs: tools on TOOLHAIL_BLOCKED_TOOLS are always refused; when TOOLHAIL_ALLOWED_TOOLS is set (non-empty, no "*") only listed tools may fire; write/mutating-looking tool names are refused unless allowWrite:true is passed or the tool is allowlisted; and TOOLHAIL_ARG_LIMITS can cap specific argument values per tool (e.g. daily_budget<=500) so an allowlisted broad tool still cannot push a value past its ceiling. Any refusal executes nothing and bills nothing, and every receipt records the gate decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Remote MCP server URL (the "remotes[].url" from a find_mcp_server result). | |
| args | No | Arguments object to pass to the tool. | |
| toolName | Yes | Name of the tool to call on that server. | |
| allowWrite | No | Explicit acknowledgement that a write/mutating call is intended. Tool names that look like writes (create/update/delete/send/pay/deploy/...) are refused by default — nothing executed, nothing billed — unless this is true or the tool is on TOOLHAIL_ALLOWED_TOOLS. Set it only when the mutation is deliberate and vetted; never set it reflexively to get past a refusal. | |
| maxSpendUsd | No | Spend cap. Refuse the call — nothing executed, nothing billed — if the gateway fee would exceed this many USD. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description fully shoulders the transparency burden. It thoroughly explains the pre-execution guards, refusal behavior (executes nothing, bills nothing), and receipt recording, making the tool's behavior highly 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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. All sentences are relevant, but it could be slightly more concise by breaking into bullet points for easier parsing.
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 (5 params, no output schema), the description covers gate logic well but fails to describe the tool's return value or error handling. Without an output schema, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about the response format.
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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the context and purpose of the allowWrite parameter and the overall guard system, enhancing understanding 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 it proxies a tool call to a remote MCP server, distinguishing it from the sibling tool find_mcp_server which finds servers. The verb 'Proxy' and resource 'discovered remote MCP server' are specific.
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 details pre-execution guards and refusal conditions (blocked/allowed tools, write detection, arg limits), which implicitly guide when to use. However, it lacks explicit contrast with alternatives or a direct statement of when to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_mcp_serverDInspect
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Plain-language description of the capability you need, e.g. 'query a Postgres database'. | |
| maxResults | No | How many ranked matches to return (default 5). | |
| requireRemote | No | Only return servers with a hosted remote endpoint (usable immediately). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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?
Tool has no description.
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!