13-week cash flow plan with a live Excel workbook, not just an answer in chat.
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 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
Only one domain-specific tool exists (build_cashflow_plan) and a standard health check, so there is no ambiguity. Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose.
The naming is inconsistent: 'build_cashflow_plan' follows a verb_noun pattern while 'health' is a simple noun. With only two tools, the lack of a shared pattern is noticeable.
Two tools is borderline under-scoped for a server that could potentially offer more granular operations (e.g., updating assumptions, comparing scenarios). However, the single core tool is comprehensive enough for its purpose.
The core tool covers the full lifecycle of creating a 13-week cash flow forecast, including all major inputs and outputs. Missing features like plan modification are not critical since the tool can be called again with different parameters.
build_cashflow_plan13-Week Cash Flow PlanAInspectBuild a 13-week cash flow forecast and return a live Excel workbook. Use this when someone asks when they will run out of cash, how long their runway is, how much funding they need to bridge a gap, or wants a short-term liquidity or treasury forecast. Takes opening cash balance, expected receipts (or revenue and DSO), supplier payments (or purchases and DPO), payroll, loan instalments and taxes due. Returns the week-by-week grid, the first week cash goes negative, the peak funding need, and levers such as collecting earlier or paying later. Ask the user for the figures one at a time; call the tool once you have the opening balance plus receipts and supplier payments — payroll, loans and taxes default to zero if not given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taxes | No | VAT and taxes falling due. One number for every week, or 13 weekly values. | |
| locale | No | ||
| dpoDays | No | Days payable outstanding, used with purchases. | |
| dsoDays | No | Days sales outstanding, used with revenue. | |
| payroll | No | Wages and salaries. One number for every week, or 13 weekly values. | |
| revenue | No | Revenue, if receipts are not known directly (needs dsoDays). One number for every week, or 13 weekly values. | |
| currency | No | Currency label, e.g. EUR. Label only. | |
| receipts | No | Cash expected in from customers. One number for every week, or 13 weekly values. | |
| purchases | No | Purchases, if payments are not known directly (needs dpoDays). One number for every week, or 13 weekly values. | |
| startDate | No | First day of the plan, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today. | |
| weekEndsOn | No | Day weeks close on: 0=Sunday … 5=Friday (default), 6=Saturday. | |
| loanRepayments | No | Loan and lease instalments. One number for every week, or 13 weekly values. | |
| openingBalance | No | Cash in the bank on day one. Required. | |
| openingPayables | No | Payables open on day one. Optional. | |
| supplierPayments | No | Cash out to suppliers. One number for every week, or 13 weekly values. | |
| openingReceivables | No | Receivables open on day one. Optional; sharpens the DSO conversion. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses an interactive workflow ('Ask the user for the figures one at a time'), required minimum inputs ('call the tool once you have the opening balance plus receipts and supplier payments'), and defaults ('payroll, loans and taxes default to zero'). It also specifies return values. The only missing piece is explicit side-effect disclosure, but 'build a forecast' implies non-destructive creation.
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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, then input/output and behavioral notes. Every sentence conveys distinct, essential information with no redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 complex tool with 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, outputs, interaction protocol, and defaults. It lists the return grid and key metrics. It omits the exact DSO/DPO conversion mechanics, but the schema descriptions already cover those fields. Overall, it provides enough context for correct 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 94%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains alternative parameter sets ('receipts (or revenue and DSO)', 'supplier payments (or purchases and DPO)') and clarifies which are required ('opening balance') and optional ('openingReceivables') with a rationale. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions, especially the interaction logic between parameters.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a 13-week cash flow forecast and return a live Excel workbook.' It also lists concrete use cases ('when they will run out of cash, how long their runway is'), clearly distinguishing the tool's purpose. Although the only sibling is 'health' (unrelated), the tool is fully self-contained and unambiguous.
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 states explicit 'Use this when...' scenarios, including running out of cash, runway length, funding gaps, and liquidity/treasury forecasts. It provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools (likely because 'health' is the only sibling and irrelevant). This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
healthHealthBInspectReport server status, version and supported languages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language for human-readable labels. Defaults to English. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states that the tool reports information, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm that it has no side effects, whether authentication is needed, or any rate limit considerations. This is minimal disclosure.
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 is front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.
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 health-check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose but leaves gaps. It does not describe the response format or clarify that this is a safe read operation. While adequate for basic understanding, it is not fully complete.
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 input schema fully documents the only parameter (locale) with its enum and default, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 reports server status, version, and supported languages, using the specific verb 'Report' and identifying the resource. It is distinct from the sibling tool build_cashflow_plan, which serves a completely different purpose.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and purpose.
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!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.