AccessOracle - 10 access control tools: IAM, PAM, recertification, segregation of duties.
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.
Average 2.9/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
Most tools target distinct areas like compliance, audits, or account management. However, access_review and privileged_audit both touch on review status, which could cause confusion when selecting the right audit tool.
Tool names are predominantly noun phrases (e.g., access_review, sod_matrix) with a couple of verb-led exceptions (list_accounts, register_account). This mixes conventions but remains readable and predictable enough for an agent.
With 10 tools, the set is well-sized for an access governance server, covering account management, compliance checks, and process tracking without being overwhelming.
The set covers account lifecycle basics, compliance checks, and audit processes, but lacks explicit update/delete operations for accounts or direct actions for access assignment. Overall, it provides a solid coverage of monitoring and analysis needs.
access_gap_analysisAInspectGap analysis against RTS Art. 21 requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must convey behavior. It merely states the purpose without disclosing whether the tool is read-only, what output it produces, or any side effects. An agent cannot infer whether this is a report, a scan, or something that modifies state.
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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's function. 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?
For a parameterless tool, the description is sufficient to know the topic (RTS Art. 21 gap analysis), but it lacks information about expected outputs, triggering conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more context would help the agent anticipate the result.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to explain any inputs.
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 a specific action ('gap analysis') against a specific regulatory reference (RTS Art. 21). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like access_review or sod_matrix, which serve different compliance checks.
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 for assessing compliance gaps against RTS Art. 21 but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives. The purpose statement provides context, but no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
access_reviewCInspectTrack access recertification reviews. Set add=true to log a review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| add | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| decision | No | ||
| reviewer | No | ||
| account_id | No | ||
| review_date | No | ||
| overdue_days | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It reveals that 'add=true' triggers a log action but leaves unclear what happens when add is false or omitted (e.g., listing/tracking behavior). No side effects, permissions, or return behavior are disclosed.
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 concise at two clauses and front-loads the primary purpose. However, it sacrifices clarity about the tool's full behavior to achieve brevity, so it's slightly under-specified for a 7-parameter tool.
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 7-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal. It fails to explain return values, the effect of other parameters, or the default behavior when 'add' is not true, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
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% and the description only explains the 'add' parameter. The other six parameters (notes, decision, reviewer, account_id, review_date, overdue_days) receive no semantic clarification, leaving significant ambiguity for agent usage.
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 'Track access recertification reviews' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'access_gap_analysis' and 'mfa_compliance' by focusing on recertification, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings; the only conditional is 'Set add=true to log a review,' which does not cover when to use the tool for tracking/list scenarios. Alternatives are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
break_glass_logCInspectEmergency access logging. Set log=true to record usage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| log | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| used_by | No | ||
| account_id | No | ||
| approved_by | No | ||
| duration_minutes | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions setting 'log=true' to record usage, without explaining side effects, whether it is read-only or mutating, what happens when 'log' is false, or any requirements. The description is nearly silent on behavioral traits beyond the parameter hint.
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 concise and not verbose, but it is under-specified. Two sentences convey only a fragment of the tool's functionality. While it avoids waste, it lacks essential details, making it only modestly structured.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter relationships, or typical usage workflows. The agent would have to guess at most of the tool's operation.
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% – none of the six parameters (reason, used_by, account_id, approved_by, duration_minutes) are described in the schema or the description. The description only mentions 'log' but doesn't define its default or semantics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 identifies the tool as 'Emergency access logging' and provides a specific instruction ('Set log=true to record usage'), making its primary purpose clear. It names the resource (emergency access) and differentiates from sibling tools like privileged_audit and access_review by focusing on logging rather than analysis or review.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is setting 'log=true' to record usage, but there is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Siblings like privileged_audit are not referenced, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkCInspectServer status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Server status' implies a read-only operation but does not state whether it requires authentication, what the response contains, or any side effects. The description gives no actionable behavioral detail.
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 short, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits details that would help an agent understand the tool's behavior, making it less useful than a slightly longer description that earns its place.
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, the description minimally identifies its function, but it lacks information about return values, output format, or interpretation. With no output schema provided, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed. With 0 params, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no parameter meaning because there are none to describe.
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 'Server status' implies the tool reports the server's health, but it lacks a clear verb like 'check' or 'return.' It is vague compared to the specific verbs in sibling tools, though it does suggest a system-level function distinct from the security-oriented siblings.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely a label with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
jml_processCInspectJoiner/Mover/Leaver process tracking. Set log_event=true to log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| username | No | ||
| log_event | No | ||
| event_type | No | ||
| verified_by | No | ||
| actions_taken | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. The only behavioral hint is 'Set log_event=true to log,' which merely restates the schema's log_event parameter and adds no new context about side effects, permissions, or processing behavior.
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 two short sentences with zero filler, making it maximally concise. It is front-loaded with the core phrase and a single instruction, so it earns full marks for conciseness.
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?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this minimal description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, return values, or necessary inputs, leaving the agent with too little context to use it reliably.
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%, and the description only mentions log_event, which is already self-explanatory from the parameter name. It offers no clarification for date, username, event_type, verified_by, or actions_taken, failing to compensate for the lack of 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 says 'Joiner/Mover/Leaver process tracking' which is a vague noun phrase that largely restates the tool name 'jml_process'. It lacks a specific verb and resource, and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like 'break_glass_log' or 'access_review'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_accountsCInspectList accounts with filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| no_mfa | No | ||
| system | No | ||
| account_type | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('List') but does not mention any filters behavior, pagination, defaults, or potential side effects. It also does not address what happens when no filters are provided or the meaning of the filter parameters.
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 appropriately short and front-loaded, containing only four words. However, it is under-specified due to its brevity, lacking necessary details about filters and behavior. It is not verbose, but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured for a tool with multiple 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 has three optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not cover the meaning of the filters, any constraints, or expected return values. The description provides only the minimal function, leaving the agent without essential context to use the tool effectively.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters, but it only says 'with filters' without defining no_mfa, system, or account_type. The generic mention of filters provides minimal semantic value, but it does not explain what each parameter does or expected input formats.
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 function: listing accounts with filtering capability. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('accounts'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like access_review, though the name and description are fairly distinct.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It provides no context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The usage is only implied by the straightforward name, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mfa_complianceAInspectCheck MFA coverage against DORA Art. 9(4)(d) requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Check MFA coverage' without stating whether this is a read-only operation, what output format to expect, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a compliance checking 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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately 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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the check returns or how the results are presented. While the purpose is clear, the lack of output detail means an agent may not know what to expect from invoking it. This is a moderate gap for a compliance tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-related semantics because none exist.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource 'MFA coverage' against a specific regulatory standard 'DORA Art. 9(4)(d)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like access_gap_analysis or access_review, which focus on other compliance aspects.
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 verifying MFA compliance against DORA Art. 9(4)(d), providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
privileged_auditCInspectPrivileged account audit — MFA, shared, review status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the audit is read-only, what outputs or effects it produces, or any prerequisites. The brief phrase gives only a high-level subject, not behavioral detail.
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 short, which makes it concise, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It provides some content but lacks an explicit action verb and could be better structured.
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 and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how the tool differs from siblings, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it effectively.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies, as there are no parameter behaviors to describe.
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 identifies the tool as an audit of privileged accounts and lists the key areas covered (MFA, shared, review status). It implies the verb 'audit' and specifies a resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like access_review or mfa_compliance.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as access_review or mfa_compliance. The description neither states use cases nor mentions any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
register_accountBInspectRegister a privileged/service/shared account for IAM tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| system | No | ||
| username | Yes | ||
| is_shared | No | ||
| account_id | No | ||
| cif_access | No | ||
| department | No | ||
| mfa_method | No | ||
| criticality | No | ||
| mfa_enabled | No | ||
| account_type | Yes | ||
| remote_access | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool registers an account, but does not explain side effects, idempotency, required permissions, whether IAM systems are modified, or what happens on duplicate registration. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, given the tool has 13 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is under-specified and not appropriately sized; it is concise but not sufficiently 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?
This is a registration tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description offers only a basic purpose statement and completely omits context around required inputs, behavior, and outputs. It falls short of what is needed for a tool of this complexity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for documenting parameters, but it only vaguely hints at account_type values (privileged/service/shared) which are three of the five enum options. It does not clarify required fields like username, or the meaning of notes, owner, system, mfa methods, etc., leaving most parameters unexplained.
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 uses the specific verb 'Register' with the resource 'account' and the scope 'for IAM tracking'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_accounts (listing) and access_review (reviewing), and its intended action is unmistakable.
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 phrase 'Register a privileged/service/shared account' implies using this tool when adding an account for IAM tracking, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sod_matrixBInspectDetect Segregation of Duties conflicts across accounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only analysis, what data sources it examines, whether it produces a report, or any side effects. The single phrase 'Detect...conflicts' leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately, making the intent immediately obvious to an agent.
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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description is the sole source of context. It is too terse to explain what 'detect' returns (e.g., a list of accounts, a severity report), how the tool operates, or how it relates to sibling tools like access_gap_analysis. This leaves material gaps for an agent trying to decide whether to invoke this tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'across accounts' adds a small amount of context without needing parameter-level detail.
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 uses the specific verb 'Detect' and identifies the resource as 'Segregation of Duties conflicts across accounts,' clearly stating the tool's core function. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like access_gap_analysis or access_review, which could also reasonably be used for auditing access-related issues.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what the tool does without outlining appropriate contexts, exclusions, or examples of when a sibling tool would be more suitable.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!