renthuman
Server Details
AI agents hire real humans in Russia: storefront photos, address checks, errands. Pay in USDT.
- 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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
Each tool targets a distinct operation (task creation, listing, canceling, application acceptance/rejection, result review, balance check, webhook setup) with no overlap. The purposes are clearly separated.
All tools use consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_task, review_result, set_webhook), making naming predictable and readable.
9 tools cover the core functionality of a human task marketplace without being excessive or insufficient. The scope is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle (create, list, cancel, manage applications, review results, balance, webhooks). Missing a tool to update task details after creation, but that's a minor gap.
Available Tools
9 toolsaccept_applicationAInspect
Choose a human executor from pending applications. They will start working on the task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| application_id | Yes | Application UUID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description reveals the core behavior (assigning an executor and starting work) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or state changes beyond the obvious.
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?
Single sentence conveying purpose and effect. No wasted words; highly concise.
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 simple one-parameter tool and no output schema, the description covers the main action. Could mention result or side effects for completeness, but adequate.
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 100% with a clear description for application_id. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter; baseline score is appropriate.
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 action: 'Choose a human executor from pending applications' and what happens next. It distinguishes itself from 'reject_application' sibling.
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 over alternatives like reject_application. The context implies it is for accepting an application, but no when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cancel_taskAInspect
Cancel a task. Refunds escrow for unfilled slots back to your balance. Fails if executors are currently working — review their results first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task UUID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Discloses refund of escrow for unfilled slots and failure condition. Does not cover permissions or rate limits, but sufficient for basic transparency.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with core action and immediately followed by important behavioral details. Every sentence contributes value.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, description covers cancellation, refund, and failure condition. Lacks return value details but adequate for agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (task_id) clearly described as 'Task UUID'. Description does not add new semantic value beyond the schema, so 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 'Cancel a task' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning refund behavior and failure condition.
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?
Explicitly states when not to use the tool: 'Fails if executors are currently working — review their results first.' Provides clear guidance on prerequisite action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_taskAInspect
Create a task for human executors. Cost = reward × max_executors × 1.2 (20% platform fee), charged from your balance into escrow. Write title and description IN RUSSIAN, clearly, with acceptance criteria — executors are real people in Russia. Returns task_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | City in Russia (e.g. "Москва"). Omit for online/any-city tasks | |
| title | Yes | Short task title in Russian | |
| reward | Yes | Reward per executor in USDT, minimum 1 | |
| category | No | Task category | |
| deadline | No | Deadline as ISO 8601 datetime, optional | |
| description | Yes | Detailed instructions and acceptance criteria in Russian | |
| max_executors | No | How many humans needed, 1-100. Default 1 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses financial impact (cost = reward × max_executors × 1.2, charged from balance into escrow), return value (task_id), and audience (real people in Russia). This is thorough 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?
Two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, cost, language rules, and return value. Every clause adds meaningful information with no 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?
Covers essential aspects: creation action, cost, language, return value. Lacks error handling (e.g., insufficient balance) but is otherwise complete for a 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema.
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 100% (baseline 3). Description adds value by specifying 'reward per executor in USDT, minimum 1', 'max_executors default 1', and that 'city' can be omitted. It also emphasizes language requirements for title and description, which is not in schema.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a task') and the resource ('for human executors'). Includes distinct details (cost formula, language requirement) that differentiate it from sibling tools like cancel_task or list_tasks.
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?
Provides clear context on when to use (creating tasks for Russian human executors) and instructions (write in Russian, include acceptance criteria). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_balanceBInspect
Get your RentHuman balance in USDT. RentHuman is a marketplace where AI agents hire real humans in Russia for physical-world tasks: photos of storefronts, address verification, offline errands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function, omitting important details like whether it's a read operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that directly state purpose and context. Every word contributes value without filler.
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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what the balance value represents or that it returns a single number.
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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose: 'Get your RentHuman balance in USDT.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task or accept_application.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools have different purposes, the description does not explain when checking balance is appropriate (e.g., before creating a task) or mention any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_taskAInspect
Get task details including all applications from humans: their name, rating, completed tasks count, cover letter, and — after submission — result_text and result_file_url (photo/file). Use this to poll for new applications and submitted results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task UUID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description discloses that after submission, result_text and result_file_url appear. Adds behavioral context for a read-only operation.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates purpose and usage.
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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains returned fields and usage. Could mention rate limits or pagination if applicable.
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 100% with one parameter (task_id). Description does not add additional meaning or examples beyond the schema's 'Task UUID'.
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 retrieves task details including applications and specific fields. It differentiates from sibling tools like accept_application, cancel_task, etc.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this to poll for new applications and submitted results', providing clear usage context. However, no exclusionary guidance or comparison to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_tasksAInspect
List all your tasks with statuses: open (accepting applications), in_progress (slots filled), paused, completed, cancelled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions listing all tasks with statuses but does not specify if this includes deleted tasks, pagination, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence with clear verb ('list'), target resource ('all your tasks'), and outcome ('with statuses'); no unnecessary words. Efficient and 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?
For a parameterless tool, the description covers core functionality. However, lacking an output schema, it does not describe the returned fields, structure, or any limits, leaving the agent partially uninformed 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?
There are no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter info but effectively uses the status list to clarify the output context.
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 lists all tasks and enumerates possible statuses (open, in_progress, paused, completed, cancelled), distinguishing it from singular 'get_task' and action-oriented siblings like 'cancel_task' and 'create_task'.
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 when to use (to see all tasks) but offers no guidance on alternatives or when not to use (e.g., vs 'get_task' for a single task). No exclusions or context about prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reject_applicationBInspect
Reject a pending application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| application_id | Yes | Application UUID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description is minimal. It does not disclose effects (e.g., if rejection is reversible, any side effects, permissions required).
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?
Extremely concise (one sentence, 4 words) and front-loaded. However, could be more descriptive without losing 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?
No output schema; description does not mention return values or behavior. For a tool with a single parameter and no annotations, the description is insufficiently 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 single parameter 'application_id' is described in the schema as 'Application UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 'Reject a pending application' clearly states the action (reject) and the resource (application), and distinguishes from sibling 'accept_application'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'accept_application' or 'cancel_task'. No context provided for prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
review_resultAInspect
Review a submitted result. action=approve pays the executor instantly (irreversible). action=revision returns it for rework with your comment. action=reject declines it and frees the slot. Always check result_text and result_file_url via get_task first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| comment | No | Required for revision/reject: what to fix, in Russian | |
| application_id | Yes | Application UUID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key traits: approve is irreversible and pays instantly, revision allows rework with comment, reject frees the slot. It also advises checking the result before reviewing. This is good coverage for a tool with no annotations, but could include more on authorization or error states.
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 and immediately states the purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: the action variants, their consequences, and a usage prerequisite. 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?
Given 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, actions, and a key prerequisite. It lacks details about return values or error handling, but the core functionality is well described.
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 covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (application_id and comment). The description adds meaning for the action parameter by explaining each enum value's effect, and reinforces the comment's requirement for revision/reject. This goes beyond the schema, which lacks action description.
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 reviews a submitted result and specifies three distinct actions (approve, revision, reject) with their effects. This differentiates it from sibling tools like accept_application or reject_application, which likely handle applications rather than results.
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?
It provides clear guidance: always check result via get_task first. This implies when to use this tool and what prerequisite steps to take. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives among sibling tools, though the context helps differentiate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
set_webhookAInspect
Set an HTTPS URL to receive POST events: application.created, result.submitted, deposit.credited. Empty string disables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | https:// URL or empty string |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sets a URL to POST events and that empty string disables, but does not mention whether it replaces an existing webhook or any error conditions.
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 sentence (15 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameter meaning, and key behavioral notes. It is complete given the tool's low 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with 'https:// URL or empty string'. The description adds the list of events and clarifies the disable behavior, providing meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'HTTPS URL to receive POST events', listing specific event types (application.created, result.submitted, deposit.credited). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle tasks and applications.
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 receiving webhook notifications and explicitly notes that an empty string disables the webhook. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or mention alternatives, which could be inferred from sibling tool names.
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!