Heartly Deals — Live Flash Sales
Server Details
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.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
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.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_deal_by_idGet deal by idAInspect
Look up a single active deal by its Heartly internal id (UUID).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Heartly internal deal id (UUID). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes a read-only operation without side effects, but does not disclose any potential constraints (e.g., rate limits, auth requirements) or behavior on missing IDs.
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?
Single sentence with no fluff. Immediately states the core functionality and identifier type. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies the purpose and the required identifier. Could optionally mention return type but is not essential.
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 fully describes the 'id' parameter with format uuid and pattern. Description adds no additional semantics beyond stating the parameter is a 'Heartly internal id (UUID)', which is redundant with 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?
Clearly states action ('look up'), resource ('single active deal'), and identifier ('Heartly internal id (UUID)'). Distinct from sibling tools list_active_deals and search_deals_by_category which serve different retrieval needs.
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?
Implies usage when a specific UUID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_active_dealsList active dealsAInspect
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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses sorting by 'ending soonest' and optional filters, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or result limits. As a read-only list, this is adequate but could be more 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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose, sorting, and filter flexibility are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to understand quickly.
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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects but omits details like pagination or result count. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool with reasonable expectations.
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%, but the description adds value by stating filters are 'optional and combinable' and clarifying the country filter behavior (shipping_countries or worldwide), which goes beyond the 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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'active flash-sale deals from verified Heartly merchants', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'active' and sorting by 'ending soonest', which differentiates it from get_deal_by_id 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 mentions 'Filters are optional and combinable', implying when to apply filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. However, the context of listing active deals suggests it for general browsing, while siblings are for specific lookups or category searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_deals_by_categorySearch deals by categoryAInspect
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. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it searches active deals, but does not mention that it is read-only, any side effects, or response format. This is insufficient for full 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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every clause serves a purpose.
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 simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but could be more complete by mentioning that it returns a list of deals or expected output.
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 parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value by summarizing required vs optional, but does not provide additional semantic context 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 the verb 'search' and the resource 'active deals' with a required category filter, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_active_deals' which would return all active deals without filtering.
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 marks the category argument as required and lists other optional filters, providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly direct when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the context is implicit.
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!