Skip to main content
Glama

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

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

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.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (search_articles, get_article), making the naming predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Available Tools

2 tools
get_articleAInspect

Retourne le contenu complet d'une notice de moncompte.org à partir de son slug (obtenu via search_articles).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesSlug de l'article (ex. « mon-compte-revolut »).
Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNombre de résultats (1-20, défaut 10).
queryYesMots-clés de recherche (ex. « se connecter Revolut »).
Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Servers

  • F
    license
    -
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Read-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.
  • A
    license
    -
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Read-only MCP server to search and read emails and calendar events from a BlueMind account via the BlueMind REST API.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Read-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.
    8
    29
    MIT

View all MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.