intentlink
Server Details
The best agent monetization tool: free search, clear rev-share, 10M+ commerce/travel/local offers.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- whalefuntech/intentlink_docs
- 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 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct domain: events, products, and travel. Their purposes are clearly differentiated, with no overlap or ambiguity.
All three tools follow a consistent 'search_<domain>' pattern (search_events, search_products, search_travel), making it easy to infer functionality from the name.
Three tools is a small set, but it covers the primary domains (events, shopping, travel) that the server is designed for. It is well-scoped and not overly sparse.
The server provides comprehensive search for three major categories. While additional categories could be added, the current set handles common use cases. The descriptions include filtering, pagination, and direct buy links, leaving no obvious dead ends.
Available Tools
3 toolssearch_eventsAInspect
Search live ticketing/events (concerts, sports, theater) and get ranked event bundles.
Only query is required — a natural-language description of what the buyer wants
(e.g. "taylor swift concert near LA this summer"). Add fields to narrow results:
keywords: exact terms — performer / team / show / venue (a precise lookup).
categories: e.g. ["Concerts"|"Sports"|"Theater"] (read the
events://categoriesresource for valid values).city / state: location (e.g. city="Los Angeles", state="CA"). country defaults to US.
date_from / date_to: explicit date window, YYYY-MM-DD (event dates are date-only).
when: fuzzy time — "this_weekend" | "this_week" | "this_month" | "next_7_days" | "next_30_days" (ignored if date_from/date_to are given).
min_price / max_price: ticket 'from' price band (USD).
sort: "relevance" (default) | "soonest" | "cheapest".
limit: max results (default 10).
agent_id is REQUIRED: your registered, active agent id — the attribution + access key. A
missing/blank or unregistered agent_id is rejected (no anonymous use).
Returns {count, message, events:[{bundle_id,title,venue,city,next_date,price_min,...,
sessions:[{date,price,buy_url,landing_url}]}]}. Each session's buy_url is ALREADY the
trackable ticket link — hand it to the buyer directly. landing_url is the plain event
page. When a date filter is given, sessions are the in-window dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| when | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| state | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| keywords | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| max_price | No | ||
| min_price | No | ||
| categories | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: agent_id must be registered, event dates are date-only, buy_url is already trackable, landing_url is plain event page, sessions filtered by date, country defaults to US. This adds significant transparency.
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 fairly long but well-structured: first line summary, then parameter groups with dash-bullets. It is front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but appropriate given the number of parameters.
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 tool's complexity (13 params, output schema), the description is complete. It covers input, output format, behavioral details, and edge cases. The output schema is included, so return values are clear.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all 13 parameters. It does so comprehensively, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles for query, keywords, categories, location, date, price, sort, limit, and agent_id.
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 tool's purpose: 'Search live ticketing/events (concerts, sports, theater) and get ranked event bundles.' It specifies the action (search) and resource (events), and by its name and context, it distinguishes from sibling tools like search_products and search_travel.
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 provides extensive usage guidance on each parameter, including when to use 'when' vs date_from/date_to, and the requirement for agent_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives, but the context of events vs products/travel is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_productsAInspect
Search affiliate shopping products and get ranked recommendations.
Only query is required — a natural-language description of what the shopper wants
(e.g. "a warm waterproof jacket for winter hiking"). Add fields to narrow results:
keywords: exact product terms. Use a SPECIFIC product type ("women running shoes", "stainless steel knife set"), not a bare generic noun ("shoes", "knife") — a generic keyword can surface the wrong audience. Audience/occasion go in
query.commerce_l2s: category ids to restrict to (read the
commerce://categoriesresource for valid values — that taxonomy is for shopping only).max_price / min_price: price band (USD). platforms: ["amazon"|"walmart"] (empty=all).
intent: ranking preset — "cheapest" | "best_discount" | "top_rated" | "best_value".
require_commission: only return products that pay a commission (default: server setting, normally on). Pass false to include zero/unknown-commission products.
limit: max results (default 10).
agent_id is REQUIRED: your registered, active agent id. It is the attribution key and
the access key — a missing/blank or unregistered agent_id is rejected (no anonymous use).
Returns {count, products:[{offer_id,title,brand,price,rating,...,buy_url,product_url}]}.
Each product's buy_url is ALREADY the trackable affiliate buy link — hand it to the
shopper directly. (product_url is the plain product page.) There is no separate
resolve/click step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| keywords | No | ||
| max_price | No | ||
| min_price | No | ||
| platforms | No | ||
| commerce_l2s | No | ||
| require_commission | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns ranked results, buy_url is final link, agent_id is required, require_commission default, and output structure. Missing details like rate limits or pagination, but adequately transparent for a search tool.
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 well-structured with a clear core purpose followed by parameter details and output notes. It is verbose but every sentence adds value. Slight length penalty but front-loaded and organized.
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 10 parameters, no annotations, and presence of output schema, the description is thoroughly complete. It covers all parameters, output shape, special behaviors (buy_url, agent_id), and references external resources. No obvious gaps.
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 0%, so description adds all meaning. It explains each parameter in depth (query, keywords, commerce_l2s, price, platforms, intent, require_commission, limit, agent_id) with usage examples, best practices, and defaults, far exceeding schema information.
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 tool searches 'affiliate shopping products' and returns 'ranked recommendations'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (search_events, search_travel) by specifying the product domain and affiliate nature.
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 explains when to use the tool (product search) and provides detailed guidance on parameter usage, including best practices for keywords and the requirement for agent_id. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, 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.
search_travelAInspect
Search travel offers and get trackable booking links for a given product type + city.
REQUIRED:
type: which travel product — one of ["hotel","flights","bundle","airport_transfer","car_rental"].
city: city name from the supported list — read the
travel://citiesresource for valid values (that city list is for travel only). Pass hotel.state (e.g. "NY") when the city name is ambiguous.agent_id: your registered, active agent id — the attribution + access key. A missing/blank or unregistered agent_id is rejected (no anonymous use).
HOTEL runs a live Trip.com search — pass the hotel object with the stay: check_in /
check_out (YYYY-MM-DD), rooms, adults, children, state. If those are missing/invalid or the
city can't be resolved, you get the hotel default links instead. Other types currently
return curated default links (the hotel object is ignored for them).
Returns {status, reason, message, links:{:[{title, brand, platform, buy_url,
product_url, ...}]}}. status is "ok" = a live hotel result; "fallback" = curated default
links (see reason); "no_results" = nothing available for the type; "error" = the agent_id
was rejected. Each buy_url is ALREADY the trackable booking link — hand it to the traveler
directly. product_url is the plain merchant page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | ||
| type | Yes | ||
| hotel | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that hotel runs a live Trip.com search, other types return curated default links, and explains the status field ('ok', 'fallback', 'no_results', 'error'). It also clarifies that buy_url is the trackable link. This is comprehensive and honest about limitations.
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 well-structured with sections (REQUIRED, HOTEL, Returns). It is informative but somewhat lengthy (4 paragraphs). Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.
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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, hotel sub-object, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: required inputs, behavior per type, return values with status codes, and special instructions (e.g., buy_url usage). It is complete for an AI agent to use correctly.
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 0% (no descriptions on top-level properties). The description adds meaning for city (must be from supported list), agent_id (registered and active), type (enum with live vs default), and hotel (detailed sub-parameters). This compensates significantly for the missing schema descriptions.
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 'Search travel offers and get trackable booking links for a given product type + city.' It uses specific verbs ('search', 'get') and identifies the resource ('travel offers', 'trackable booking links'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search_events, search_products) by focusing on travel products.
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 provides explicit requirements (type, city, agent_id) and explains when to use which type (hotel vs other). It also instructs to read a resource for valid city values. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, which would earn a 5.
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!