mcp-moncompte
Server Details
Recherche et lecture des guides de connexion de moncompte.org (MCP, lecture seule).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- waddou/mcp-moncompte
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- mcp-moncompte
Available Tools
2 toolsget_articleAInspect
Retourne le contenu complet d'une notice de moncompte.org à partir de son slug (obtenu via search_articles).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug de l'article (ex. « mon-compte-revolut »). |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates the tool returns the full content, but does not disclose error handling, read-only nature, or performance. For a simple retrieval, it is adequate but could add more.
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?
A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately states what the tool does and where the input comes from. It lacks mention of error scenarios but is generally 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 100% and the description adds value by explaining that the slug comes from search_articles, providing context beyond the schema's parameter 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?
The description clearly states the verb ('retourne'), the resource ('contenu complet d'une notice'), and the input ('slug'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_articles' by specifying that the slug is obtained via it.
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 explicitly states that the slug should be obtained via search_articles, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_articlesAInspect
Recherche des notices/guides « mon compte » de moncompte.org par mots-clés. Retourne une liste (titre, slug, URL, description). Utiliser le slug avec get_article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Nombre de résultats (1-20, défaut 10). | |
| query | Yes | Mots-clés de recherche (ex. « se connecter Revolut »). |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return format (list of fields) and gives an example query. However, it lacks details on ordering, pagination, or search behavior (fuzzy matching, operators). Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 front-loading the purpose and return format, then linking to sibling tool. No unnecessary words.
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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and how to chain with get_article. The example in the schema adds further clarity.
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 descriptions for both parameters, including an example for query. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 it searches for notices/guides by keywords, returns a list with title, slug, URL, description, and instructs to use the slug with get_article, distinguishing it from the sibling tool.
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?
It explicitly says to use the slug with get_article, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.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
Guides de connexion aux espaces clients français de compteparticulier.com (MCP, lecture seule).
Search and read the official MintMCP documentation, the enterprise MCP gateway.
Read-only Frasma MCP: profile, knowledge search, diagnostic handoff. No email.
Read-only MCP access to a documented IT fleet: state, changes, posture. 15 tools.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP-capable assistants to read files, work packages, and wiki pages from an openDesk instance using the account's existing permissions.1Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceRead-only MCP server for Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD) that enables querying user sign-in logs, group memberships, and assigned Microsoft 365 licenses via Microsoft Graph API. Provides security and audit visibility without any write operations.
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceRead-only MCP server to search and read emails and calendar events from a BlueMind account via the BlueMind REST API.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceRead-only MCP server for the Swiss eBill portal, enabling users to list bills and download invoice PDFs via an authenticated browser session. It cannot approve, release, or pay anything.811MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_articles finds articles by keywords, and get_article retrieves a specific article by slug. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_articles, get_article), making the naming predictable and readable.
With only 2 tools, the server is slightly under the typical 3-15 range, but it covers the essential operations of searching and retrieving articles for this narrow domain, so it earns its place.
The tool set covers the core workflow of finding and viewing articles. A minor gap could be the lack of a 'list all articles' function, but search with keywords can suffice, so completeness is good.