F
license-
qualityC
maintenanceMCP server that exposes Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud APIs as 14 read-only tools for managing alerts, tasks, agents, resources, policies, and tenants.
Last updated
avizo-mcp
by ro.avizo
Server Details
Avizo (RO SME compliance-deadline SaaS) as MCP tools: about, plans, categories, docs. Read-only.
- 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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a different aspect: product overview, categories, documentation, user items, and pricing. No overlap in purpose, making it easy for an agent to distinguish.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the 'avizo_<noun>' pattern with consistent snake_case, making naming predictable and clear.
Tool Count5/5
5 tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose, covering all key areas of the Avizo product without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers product info, categorization, documentation, user data retrieval, and pricing, which are the essential elements for interacting with Avizo. No obvious gaps for its read-only informational role.
Available Tools
5 toolsavizo_aboutWhat Avizo is and how it worksARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Product overview of Avizo (avizo.ro): compliance-deadline tracking and alerting for Romanian SMEs — what it tracks, alert channels and cadence, post-expiry escalation, integrations, billing model, GDPR posture. Factual summary; use avizo_plans for pricing details and avizo_docs for user documentation.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it is a 'factual summary', which reinforces idempotency, and outlines the content scope, though no additional behavioral constraints are noted.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description fully covers its purpose, scope, and relationship to sibling tools.
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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so no param info is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states 'Product overview of Avizo' and lists specific topics covered, distinguishing it from sibling tools by directing to avizo_plans and avizo_docs for related details.
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 advises 'use avizo_plans for pricing details and avizo_docs for user documentation', providing clear when-to-use guidance and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
avizo_categoriesTracked document categoriesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
All document/obligation categories Avizo tracks out of the box (Romanian display names — the product UI is Romanian): vehicles (ITP, RCA, road vignette, tachograph…), HR (occupational medicine, SSM/PSI trainings…), fiscal (permits, local taxes, contracts…), IT (domains…) and company documents. Each category carries its default alert lead times in days. Custom categories can be added by users.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | Filter by group; omit for all 28 categories |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it is read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful context: Romanian display names, default alert lead times, and that custom categories can be added. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value (examples, lead times, customizability). Slightly long for a simple tool, but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers purpose, examples, and behavioral traits adequately. It doesn't specify return format but that's acceptable.
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% with a clear description for the 'group' parameter. The description adds semantic value by listing examples of categories under each group (e.g., vehicles: ITP, RCA), enriching the enum understanding.
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?
The description clearly states it lists all document/obligation categories Avizo tracks, with examples grouped. The title reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like avizo_docs which deal with documents, not categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
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 vs alternatives. It is implied as a category listing tool, but lacks 'use this if you need category metadata' or 'for documents use avizo_docs' style direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
avizo_docsUser documentation (list or fetch one page)ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Without arguments: lists every documentation page on avizo.ro/docs (quickstart, alert cadence, hierarchical escalation, SmartBill integration, API reference, troubleshooting) with slug and description. With {slug}: returns that page as markdown — the exact content the site renders. For programmatic integration read {slug: "api-reference"}.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Doc slug from the list, e.g. "quickstart" or "api-reference" |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the returned content is exactly what the site renders (markdown format), and that listing returns all pages. This complements annotations with useful behavioral detail without contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, each conveying essential information without filler. The first sentence covers the two modes of operation; the second gives a concrete usage example. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple listing/fetching tool with no output schema, the description fully covers behavior: listing returns all pages with metadata, fetching returns markdown, and a usage example. Sibling tools are unrelated, and context signals (one optional param) are well addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the slug parameter. The description adds significant meaning by explaining that omitting slug lists all pages, while providing slug fetches that page. This conditional behavior is not captured in schema alone.
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?
The description clearly states that without arguments the tool lists all documentation pages, and with a slug it fetches a single page. It names the specific resource (avizo.ro/docs) and actions (list, fetch), and the sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly explains conditional usage: no argument for listing, slug argument for fetching. It provides examples of slugs like 'quickstart' and 'api-reference'. Though it doesn't mention when not to use, the conditional behavior is clear and sufficient for a documentation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
avizo_my_itemsYour tracked documents and deadlines (requires API key)ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
The calling company's OWN tracked documents from Avizo, with days-to-expiry, urgency level (expired / critical ≤7 days / warning ≤30 / ok) and a recommended action per document. REQUIRES an Avizo API key (Pro/Fleet) sent as "Authorization: Bearer avizo_pk_...". Without a key the tool returns instructions for creating one — it never invents data. Read-only: nothing is modified.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expiring_within_days | No | Only documents expiring within N days (server-side filter) |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses auth requirements, fallback behavior (returns instructions without key), and output fields. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so description adds value by explaining the key requirement and response format.
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?
Three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, auth requirement, and read-only guarantee. No filler.
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?
Given one optional param, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all key behavioral aspects including missing-key behavior, output summary, and safety. Fully complete for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers the single parameter fully (description already explains server-side filter). Description does not add further details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states it lists the calling company's own tracked documents with expiry details, urgency levels, and recommended actions. It distinguishes from siblings like avizo_docs by emphasizing 'own' and specifying the data fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit prerequisites (API key), behavior without a key, and confirms read-only nature. Does not explicitly compare to siblings but the purpose scoping implies when to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
avizo_plansPlans and pricing (EUR)ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
The four Avizo subscription plans (Free, Basic, Pro, Fleet) with monthly EUR prices, item/user limits, alert channels and feature lists. Generated from the same plan definitions the app enforces — null max_items/max_users means unlimited; null price_monthly_eur means custom pricing (see price_label).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds value by explaining the data source and null semantics, without contradicting annotations.
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?
Two sentences with no waste; key information is front-loaded and clearly communicated.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description covers all relevant output details (plans, fields, null meanings), making it complete for a read-only retrieval tool.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description effectively describes the output, compensating for the lack of output schema.
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?
The description specifies the tool returns the four Avizo subscription plans with their attributes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like avizo_about or avizo_my_items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; however, given zero parameters, the use case is self-evident.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityAmaintenancePublic read-only MCP server for turva.dev's agent-readiness audit, enabling AI agents to query service catalog, security evidence, and engagement principles via structured JSON.Last updated1MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceA read-only MCP server for SimpleShop accounting data, enabling AI agents to find documents, download PDFs, inspect products, and review sales exports.Last updated5MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for smallinvoice.ch — Swiss SME invoicing and accounting with 146 tools and OAuth2 BYOC authentication.Last updated10030MIT