Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Read your Usero feedback inbox and clusters, file feedback, build forms, and open an AI PR.

Ownership verified
Status
Healthy
Uptime
100.0% over 42 days
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL
Repository
usero-feedback/claude-plugin
GitHub Stars
0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct roles: start_signup initiates the email verification flow, and check_signup polls for completion. Their descriptions explicitly reference each other's sequence, leaving no ambiguity about which to use when.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (start_signup, check_signup). No deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count3/5

With only 2 tools, the server is at the low end of typical tool counts (3-15). While they cover the essential signup steps, the minimal surface may feel thin for a standalone server.

Completeness3/5

The signup domain is partially covered: start and poll are present, but the tool descriptions instruct the agent to call create_client after signup, which is not among the available tools. This missing step creates a dead end for completing the full workflow.

Available Tools

2 tools
check_signupCheck Signup StatusAInspect

Poll after start_signup. Returns { status: "pending" } until the user presses the button in the email, then { status: "ready", apiKey, setup } exactly once; the pollToken is dead after that. The setup field holds the exact config or command for this client plus what to tell the user (restart, or remove-and-re-add on Desktop). Poll every 5 seconds for up to 15 minutes without ending your turn. On ready, apply the setup snippet at once, then call create_client for the product.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pollTokenYesThe pollToken returned by start_signup.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the full state machine: pending until the user clicks, then a single ready payload with apiKey and setup, after which the pollToken is dead. That one-shot token lifecycle is exactly the kind of behavioral constraint annotations cannot express and prevents wasted retry loops.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every clause carries load: return shape, one-shot semantics, polling cadence, timeout, and post-ready actions. The most decision-relevant facts (poll cadence, one-time ready) are stated directly without preamble.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so precisely, naming both status states and the fields inside the ready payload. Nothing needed to drive the polling loop or act on the result is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single pollToken is already documented as coming from start_signup, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top by explaining the token's lifecycle (dead after a ready response), which tells the agent the token is not reusable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (poll) tied to a named sibling (start_signup) and names the resource (signup status). An agent immediately understands this completes the flow begun by start_signup rather than being a standalone lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to call it (after start_signup), how to call it (every 5 seconds for up to 15 minutes without ending the turn), and what to do next (apply the setup snippet, then call create_client for the product). This is a complete operating procedure, not just a hint.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

start_signupStart SignupInspect

Start signup without leaving the agent. Ask for the user's email, do not invent one. Sends an email with a Review connection button; the user presses that button, then types the userCode this tool returns and presses "Yes, connect" on the page that opens (opening the page alone does nothing). Show the user the userCode exactly as returned. That lets check_signup return an API key for this MCP client. Returns a pollToken for check_signup. No key is shown in the browser. 5 per email per hour; the link expires in 15 minutes.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe user's email address. Ask for it if you do not have it.
clientNameNoThe agent client you are running in, e.g. "Claude Code", "Cursor", "Windsurf". Shown in the email and used as the API key name.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.