Cello MCP server to launch and manage your User Referral and Partner program — for developers and growth teams.
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 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the Cello platform: events, integration status, metrics, recommendations, referrers (general and top), and documentation search. No two tools have overlapping purposes; descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent pattern with 'cello' prefix, verb (get or search), and snake_case noun. The verb choice is appropriate for each operation, and the naming is predictable and uniform.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a referral program analytics and diagnostics server. Each tool fills a necessary role without being excessive or too sparse.
The tool set covers all key read-only diagnostics: events, integration health, metrics, recommendations, referrers, and documentation. However, it lacks any write or configuration tools, which may be expected for a comprehensive integration server, but the surface is complete for its apparent diagnostic purpose.
cello_get_eventsARetrieve the latest events feed for your product — recent webhook and API events received by Cello from your webhook provider or direct API integration. Use when a user asks if events are being received correctly, why attribution isn't working, or to diagnose missing or malformed payload fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sandbox | Yes | Query the sandbox (test) environment instead of production. Only works when the user's Cello account has a connected test product |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| events | Yes | |
| environment | Yes | |
| autoAttributionEnabled | Yes | |
| isAutoAttributionMainSignupSource | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds context about the source of events (webhook provider or direct API integration) and the diagnostic scenarios. It does not disclose any rate limits or pagination, but for a simple read-only feed with annotations, this is sufficient.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by specific use cases. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words or repetition of schema details.
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 one boolean parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema available, the description covers the purpose and usage scenarios effectively. It does not mention the output format or limitations, but those are likely handled by the output schema, so the overall context is complete enough.
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 'sandbox' is fully described in the schema with its default and behavior. The description itself adds no additional parameter guidance, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 retrieves 'the latest events feed' with specific detail about webhook and API events from Cello, distinguishing it from sibling tools like integration status or metrics. The verb 'retrieve' plus the resource 'events feed' makes the purpose 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 explicitly says 'Use when a user asks if events are being received correctly, why attribution isn't working, or to diagnose missing or malformed payload fields.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the top tier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cello_get_integration_statusACheck whether all four components of a Cello integration are working correctly: Referral Widget, Attribution Widget, Signup tracking, and Purchase events tracking. Use when a user asks whether their integration is working or why events aren't processed, or as a first diagnostic step before checking the event feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sandbox | Yes | Query the sandbox (test) environment instead of production. Only works when the user's Cello account has a connected test product; accounts with only a test product always get sandbox data. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| environment | Yes | |
| signupStatus | Yes | |
| widgetStatus | Yes | |
| purchaseStatus | Yes | |
| attributionWidgetStatus | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context about the four components checked and the diagnostic role, going beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't disclose return format (covered by output schema) or any potential edge cases.
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 with the action ('Check whether'), enumerates components concisely, and provides usage guidance without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
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 an output schema present and a single boolean parameter, the description is complete: it specifies what is checked, when to use it, and how it fits as a diagnostic step. No critical information about behavior or return values is missing given the structured data.
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% and the parameter 'sandbox' has a thorough schema description explaining its behavior and constraints. The tool description adds no param-specific information, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so baseline 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 checks whether four specific components of a Cello integration are working, listing them explicitly. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like cello_get_events or cello_get_program_metrics.
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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when a user asks if their integration is working or why events aren't processed, and as a first diagnostic step before checking the event feed. This provides clear context and implies the alternative (cello_get_events) for event-level diagnosis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cello_get_program_metricsAGet complete referral program metrics in one call: lifetime totals, weekly and monthly history, and industry benchmarks. Use for questions about program performance, stats, trends, revenue, funnel metrics, or industry comparisons.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| currency | Yes | ISO currency code for all monetary values (e.g. EUR, USD) |
| benchmarks | No | Industry benchmarks by GTM motion plus the customer's own rates |
| historyByWeek | No | Weekly time series; 'periods' contains complete weeks only, 'latestPeriod' is the current week |
| allTimeMetrics | No | Lifetime cumulative totals plus recent monthly/weekly changes |
| historyByMonth | No | Monthly time series; 'periods' contains complete months only, 'latestPeriod' is the current month |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds what metrics are included (lifetime totals, weekly/monthly history, benchmarks), providing additional context beyond annotations.
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 with main action, no wasted words. Structure is efficient and clear.
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 zero parameters and output schema present, description adequately covers purpose and usage. Could be improved by mentioning data freshness or update frequency, but overall sufficient for a simple metrics tool.
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?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as description explains tool's return content without needing param details.
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?
Clear verb 'Get' with specific resource 'complete referral program metrics' and details includes lifetime totals, weekly/monthly history, benchmarks. Distinct from sibling tools like get_events, get_referrers, 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 states when to use: 'for questions about program performance, stats, trends, revenue, funnel metrics, or industry comparisons.' No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cello_get_recommendationsAReturns a prioritized list of best-practice recommendations for improving your referral program across three areas: Activation, Sharing, and Conversion. Use when a user asks how to improve their program, what they're missing, or what to do next after confirming integration health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that output is organized into three areas, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data source or update frequency. Given annotation coverage, the description provides moderate added 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?
The description consists of a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently states purpose and usage context. Every word adds value 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return format.
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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no compensation is required.
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 returns a prioritized list of best-practice recommendations for improving referral programs, specifically across Activation, Sharing, and Conversion. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on improvement advice rather than data retrieval.
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 explicitly states when to use: when a user asks how to improve their program, what's missing, or what to do next after confirming integration health. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cello_get_referrersAFinds referrers of your product and returns aggregated engagement and performance metrics, optionally filtered and sorted. Returns up to 10 referrers per page. Use when a user wants to find a specific referrer by email, UCC, product user id, or referrer id — or when they want referrers ranked by a specific metric like signups, revenue, or sharing activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-indexed; page 1 returns the first 10 referrers, page 2 the next 10, etc.). Only specify when more than 10 referrers are needed. Omit for the first 10. | |
| sort | No | Sort referrers by engagement or performance metrics (descending). Available options: daysActive (number of days the referrer has been active), daysSharing (number of days the referrer has been sharing), lastActive (when the referrer was last active), referralAnnualRecurringRevenue (Net New Annual Recurring Revenue generated), referralRecurringPurchases (total number of purchases), referralRevenue (total revenue amount), referralSignups (total number of signups), referralViewsUnique (number of unique views from new users). | |
| filter | No | Filter by email, UCC, product user id, or referrer id |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | |
| total | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds pagination details (up to 10 per page) and mentions aggregated metrics. No contradictions; the description supplements annotations well.
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 with the core action, followed by usage guidance. No fluff, every word earns its place.
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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers pagination, sorting, filtering, and a typical use case. Slightly missing could be a warning about sorting metric names, but overall 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context for the `page` parameter (when to specify) and reiterates filter criteria, but does not significantly deepen understanding 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 tool finds referrers and returns aggregated metrics, optionally filtered and sorted. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `cello_get_top_referrers` by covering both specific search and ranked lists, making its purpose 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 explicitly says when to use: when a user wants to find a specific referrer by criteria or when they want referrers ranked by a metric. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cello_get_top_referrersAFind the top-performing referrers of your product, ranked by revenue descending. Use when a user asks about top referrers, best performers, or which referrers generate the most revenue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-indexed; page 1 returns the first 10 referrers, page 2 the next 10, etc.). Only specify when more than 10 referrers are needed. Omit for the first 10. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | |
| total | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the list is ranked by revenue descending and implies pagination (page parameter description mentions page size of 10). 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, no fluff.
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 output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the use case, ranking criteria, and triggers for use. It could explicitly state that it returns a list of top referrers, but the parameter description covers pagination.
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%. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description for 'page'. No elaboration on parameter semantics is needed beyond what the schema provides.
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 finds 'top-performing referrers' ranked by revenue descending, and includes the verb 'Find' and the resource 'referrers'. It distinguishes from sibling 'cello_get_referrers' by specifying ranking and revenue metric.
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 tells when to use: 'Use when a user asks about top referrers, best performers, or which referrers generate the most revenue.' This directly guides the agent to select this tool over alternatives like 'cello_get_referrers'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cello_search_documentationASearch Cello's documentation to find relevant articles, guides, code examples, and API references. Use this when you need to answer a question about Cello, figure out how to integrate Cello, or track down specific implementation details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral contribution is minimal. The description does not add details about search behavior (e.g., pagination, result limits, or ranking), but it does not contradict annotations.
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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose. It is concise without being overly terse, and every sentence adds 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys its purpose and expected use cases. It covers the types of content that can be searched, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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% (only one parameter, 'query', with description 'Search query'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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: searching Cello's documentation for articles, guides, code examples, and API references. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('documentation'), and is easily distinguishable from sibling tools that retrieve specific data sets.
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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: when answering questions about Cello, figuring out integrations, or tracking down implementation details. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context from sibling tools implies that for specific data queries, other tools are more appropriate.
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!
