Optional default country filter (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2). Supported: DE, AT, CH. Leave empty to query all DACH countries. Other ISO codes return zero results — Heartly is DACH-preferred in v1.
Each tool has a distinct and clear purpose: fetching a specific deal by ID, listing all active deals, and searching by category. There is no overlap that would cause confusion for an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_deal_by_id, list_active_deals, search_deals_by_category). The verbs (get, list, search) are appropriate for each operation and maintain a predictable structure.
With only 3 tools, the server is on the lower end of reasonable scope. While the tools cover essential read operations for a flash sales domain, the small count suggests limited functionality, though it is not overly sparse.
The server lacks write operations (create, update, delete) and any merchant-related functionality, making it incomplete for full lifecycle management. The read-only surface is a notable gap for a deals platform.
Look up a single active deal by its Heartly internal id (UUID).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Heartly internal deal id (UUID). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool retrieves an active deal (read-only) but does not mention error handling (e.g., not found), authentication needs, or rate limits. The description adds 'active' context beyond the schema but lacks deeper behavioral details.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key constraint (active deal).
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?
For a simple lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the identifier and the scope ('active'), which covers the core functionality. It could explicitly mention the return format (e.g., full deal object), but this is implied.
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 schema already describes the parameter as 'Heartly internal deal id (UUID).' The description adds no significant new meaning beyond confirming it is an internal UUID. Per guidelines, with high schema coverage, baseline 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 looks up a single active deal by its Heartly internal UUID. The verb 'look up' and resource 'single active deal' are specific, and the identifier is precisely defined, distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_active_deals' and 'search_deals_by_category'.
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 implies usage when you have a specific UUID for a deal, and the sibling tool names suggest alternatives for listing or searching. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or include any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List currently active flash-sale deals from verified Heartly merchants. Returns deals sorted by ending soonest. Filters are optional and combinable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. Filters to merchants whose shipping_countries include this code, plus merchants who ship worldwide. | |
| category | No | Top-level product category, e.g. "fashion", "beauty", "electronics". | |
| min_discount_pct | No | Minimum discount percentage. Only return deals at or above this value. | |
| ending_within_hours | No | Only return deals ending within this many hours from now. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses sorting and filter combinability, but lacks info on response structure, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. Insufficient for a list tool with no output schema.
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, each serving a distinct purpose: first states core functionality, second adds sorting and filter flexibility. 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 no output schema, description should explain return fields. It only says 'Returns deals sorted by ending soonest' without specifying fields or structure. Missing pagination, limits, or response format, but adequately addresses param usage.
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 clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds only that filters are optional and combinable, which is already implied. Baseline score of 3 as description provides minimal extra value.
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?
Clearly states verb 'list', resource 'active flash-sale deals', scope 'from verified Heartly merchants', and sorting. Distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on active deals with ending-soonest order.
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?
Mentions filters are optional and combinable, implying flexible usage. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs. sibling tools like search_deals_by_category, which could also use category filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search active deals filtered by category. The category argument is required. Other filters (country, min_discount_pct, ending_within_hours) are optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code. Filters to merchants whose shipping_countries include this code, plus merchants who ship worldwide. | |
| category | Yes | Top-level product category, e.g. "fashion", "beauty", "electronics". | |
| min_discount_pct | No | Minimum discount percentage. Only return deals at or above this value. | |
| ending_within_hours | No | Only return deals ending within this many hours from now. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description is simple and implies a read-only search with no side effects. It does not disclose potential behaviors like pagination, ordering, or limits, but given the straightforward nature, a 3 is appropriate.
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 with no wasted words. Efficiently communicates purpose and parameter requirements.
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?
No output schema; description does not mention return format or pagination. With 4 parameters and simple functionality, it is adequate but could be more complete by noting response structure.
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%; the description adds minimal value beyond stating required vs optional. Baseline 3 is correct as schema already explains each parameter.
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 active deals filtered by category', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings 'get_deal_by_id' and 'list_active_deals' by requiring a category filter.
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?
States that 'category' is required and other filters are optional, providing clear parameter usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or specify when to use this tool over 'list_active_deals'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_deal_by_idlist_active_dealssearch_deals_by_categoryClaiming 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, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on 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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
