Huntertech.io Vendor Insights
Server Details
AI-ready vendor incident status with public active incidents and plan-scoped history.
- 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 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: listing vendors, fetching all incidents, and fetching incidents per vendor. No ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with clear prefixes: get_all_, get_, list_.
Three tools is well-scoped for a focused server on vendor incident monitoring, covering the essential read operations without bloat.
Covers the core use cases: list monitored vendors, get all incidents, get per-vendor incidents. Minor gap: no tool to retrieve a single incident's details, but the set is sufficient for typical workflows.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_all_vendor_incidentsGet All Vendor IncidentsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get active vendor incidents and outages across all monitored vendors. Anonymous calls return only ongoing or monitoring incidents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum incidents to return. Anonymous maximum is 5. | |
| timePeriod | No | Authenticated history window such as 7d, 30d, 90d, or all when allowed by plan. | |
| includeResolved | No | Include resolved incidents when authenticated. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | |
| success | Yes | |
| vendorId | No | |
| incidents | Yes | |
| dataWindow | No | |
| nextAction | No | |
| vendorName | No | |
| accessLevel | Yes | |
| lastUpdated | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that anonymous calls return only ongoing or monitoring incidents and that the limit is capped at 5 for anonymous users, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that convey the essential purpose and a key behavioral detail. 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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is relatively complete. It covers the main purpose, auth differences, and the schema handles parameter details. However, it could explicitly differentiate from 'get_vendor_incidents'.
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%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema are complete. The main description does not add significant new parameter-level semantics beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score 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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'vendor incidents and outages', and the scope 'across all monitored vendors'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_vendor_incidents' and 'list_monitored_vendors' by implying a broad, aggregated view.
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 context about anonymous vs authenticated behavior but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings. It does not specify use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_vendor_incidentsGet Vendor IncidentsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get vendor incident and outage status for one monitored vendor (for example solarwinds, zscaler, cloudflare). Anonymous calls return only ongoing or monitoring incidents. Authenticated calls can request resolved history within the user plan window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum incidents to return. Anonymous maximum is 5. | |
| vendor | Yes | Vendor ID, for example zscaler, cloudflare, github, openai. | |
| timePeriod | No | Authenticated history window such as 7d, 30d, 90d, or all when allowed by plan. | |
| includeResolved | No | Include resolved incidents when authenticated. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | |
| success | Yes | |
| vendorId | No | |
| incidents | Yes | |
| dataWindow | No | |
| nextAction | No | |
| vendorName | No | |
| accessLevel | Yes | |
| lastUpdated | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral nuances: anonymous calls return only ongoing/monitoring incidents, while authenticated calls can request resolved history within plan limits. No contradiction.
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-load the core purpose and immediately address authentication behavior. No filler or redundancy; every sentence is informative.
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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers authentication behavior and plan windows. Minor missing details (e.g., vendor not found) do not significantly detract from overall completeness.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The overall description adds context on how authentication affects parameter usage (e.g., includeResolved and timePeriod only for authenticated calls), enhancing understanding 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 tool retrieves vendor incident and outage status for one monitored vendor, differentiating it from siblings like get_all_vendor_incidents (multiple vendors) and list_monitored_vendors (listing). The verb 'get' and resource are specific.
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 distinguishes anonymous vs authenticated usage and implies single-vendor use via 'one monitored vendor'. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the sibling context provides clarity; thus, clear context without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_monitored_vendorsList Monitored VendorsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List monitored SaaS and infrastructure vendors with public incident status data, including SolarWinds, Zscaler, Cloudflare, and others.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | |
| success | Yes | |
| vendors | Yes | |
| accessLevel | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context about the data content (specific vendors, public status) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits. This meets the baseline given annotations.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's 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 no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema (not provided but exists), the description is complete. It includes examples and the type of data returned, sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?
No parameters exist (schema has no properties), so the description correctly has no parameter info. With 0 params, baseline score 4 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 the verb 'list', the resource 'monitored vendors', and adds context about the data (public incident status). It provides specific examples (SolarWinds, Zscaler, Cloudflare), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on incidents.
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 use for listing vendors, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. Sibling tools are about incidents, so the differentiation is clear but not stated outright.
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!