Public Settro sales MCP tools for missed-call ROI, direct-order recovery, social ordering, and fit.
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 2.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the sales funnel: readiness rubric, recovery options, loss estimation, and overall fit summary. No two tools overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate their outputs.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (assess_, compare_, estimate_, generate_), with descriptive noun phrases. The convention is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a sales-focused server, covering the key evaluation steps without bloat. Each tool serves a specific, non-redundant function.
The set covers the main stages of qualifying a restaurant for Settro: readiness scoring, loss quantification, recovery comparison, and final fit summary. A minor gap is the lack of a tool for actual outreach or follow-up, but the core assessment lifecycle is complete.
assess_social_ordering_readinessCInspectScore a restaurant's public social-ordering readiness using Settro's deterministic 100-point rubric.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pos_system | Yes | ||
| has_facebook_page | Yes | ||
| has_instagram_business_account | Yes | ||
| publishes_promo_content_weekly | Yes | ||
| can_reply_to_messages_within_5_minutes | Yes | ||
| wants_direct_orders_without_marketplace_commission | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention a 'deterministic 100-point rubric,' which implies the tool returns a numeric score and is deterministic, but it does not disclose side effects, data sources, or whether it performs external checks. This gives partial transparency but leaves significant gaps.
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. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, but it omits necessary details that might be expected in a fuller description. Still, as a concise statement it is well-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?
For a tool with six input parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output format, how the rubric works, what inputs are required, or any expected behavior, making it inadequate for confident 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description makes no mention of any parameters. The six parameters (e.g., pos_system, has_facebook_page) are entirely unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of 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 uses a specific verb ('Score') and identifies a clear resource ('a restaurant's public social-ordering readiness') with a defined methodology (Settro's deterministic 100-point rubric). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, which focus on comparing options, estimating losses, or generating summaries.
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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools exist but no comparison or selection criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compare_direct_order_recovery_optionsCInspectCompare manual callback, marketplace redirect, and Settro direct-order recovery using public workflow criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pos_system | Yes | ||
| primary_channel | Yes | ||
| wants_direct_orders | No | ||
| needs_social_dm_ordering | No | ||
| avoids_marketplace_commission | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'using public workflow criteria' without disclosing what the comparison entails, return format, or any side effects. This is insufficient behavioral 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, grammatically correct sentence that is concise and hits the key purpose. However, it is under-specified, providing minimal information for a tool with five 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?
With no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is entirely inadequate as the sole documentation. It doesn't explain how inputs relate to comparison results or what output is produced.
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%, yet the description doesn't mention any of the five parameters (pos_system, primary_channel, wants_direct_orders, etc.) or explain their meaning. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Compare' with a clear resource: manual callback, marketplace redirect, and Settro direct-order recovery. It distinguishes from siblings like assess_social_ordering_readiness by focusing on comparison of recovery options.
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?
Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings; it doesn't mention appropriate context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The single sentence lacks any 'when-to-use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
estimate_missed_call_lossBInspectEstimate public missed-call leakage for a restaurant using Settro's public calculator model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pos_system | No | ||
| calls_per_week | Yes | ||
| average_order_value_usd | No | ||
| missed_call_rate_percent | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions using a public calculator model, indicating a calculation, but doesn't describe the return value, side effects, prerequisites, or limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.
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?
A single, focused sentence that gets straight to the point. No extraneous 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?
With four parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no usage details, the description leaves the agent without essential retrieval and invocation information. It covers the basic purpose but omits return format, parameter meanings, and any modeling assumptions.
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 schema has four parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description mentions none of them, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's types and constraints. The agent cannot determine what each parameter represents or how they affect the estimate.
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 explicitly states the action ('Estimate'), the specific metric ('public missed-call leakage'), the target ('restaurant'), and the method ('Settro's public calculator model'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools about readiness, options, and summary.
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 does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the specific purpose implies its use for estimating missed-call leakage, so some guidance is implied, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_settro_fit_summaryCInspectSummarize public Settro fit using POS compatibility, missed-call pain, social ordering interest, and direct-order channel needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pos_system | Yes | ||
| needs_text_ordering | Yes | ||
| missed_calls_problem | Yes | ||
| social_ordering_interest | Yes | ||
| wants_month_to_month_pricing | No | ||
| needs_instagram_or_facebook_ordering | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'summarizes' fit but does not mention side effects, output format, permissions, or whether the summary is persisted. The behavioral transparency is thin.
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 front-loads the action and resource. It avoids fluff, but its brevity leaves out details needed for full usability.
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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return value, provide usage context, or cover all parameters, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names high-level categories (POS compatibility, missed-call pain, social ordering interest, direct-order channel needs) but does not map them to specific parameters or explain enum values. It omits wants_month_to_month_pricing entirely.
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 verb ('summarize') and a resource ('public Settro fit') with a list of input dimensions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on synthesis rather than assessment or comparison, but it does not 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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., assess_social_ordering_readiness, compare_direct_order_recovery_options). It only implies a general use case with no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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!