Li.Fi tools over MCP: cross-chain quotes, routes, execution status, chains, tokens, balances.
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 4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: chains, connections, gas prices, quote, routes, status, token, tokens, tools. No ambiguity as descriptions are specific and non-overlapping.
All tools follow a consistent 'lifi_verb_noun' pattern using snake_case. Verbs like 'get' are uniform, and nouns clearly indicate the resource.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a cross-chain swap service. Each tool serves an essential function without unnecessary duplication.
The tools cover all key operations: chain discovery, token lookup, route comparison, quote retrieval, gas prices, status tracking, and protocol listing. No obvious gaps for a query-focused API.
lifi_get_chainsAInspectGet all blockchain networks supported by LI.FI for cross-chain transfers and swaps. Returns chain IDs, names, native tokens, and supported bridge/exchange protocols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the read-only nature (returning chains) and specifies the output fields, which sufficiently communicates behavioral traits for a simple list tool.
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 focused sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded (verb + resource) and the second sentence adds concrete 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?
Given zero parameters, no annotations, and a straightforward output, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and return values. It is complete for the tool's complexity level.
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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is valuable beyond the empty 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 'Get all blockchain networks supported by LI.FI' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like lifi_get_token and lifi_get_connections by specifying the scope and returned fields (chain IDs, names, native tokens, supported protocols).
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 retrieving the list of supported chains, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools (e.g., lifi_get_tokens or lifi_get_connections) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_connectionsAInspectGet available cross-chain connections between two chains. Optionally filter by source and destination tokens. Shows which bridges and exchanges can transfer between the specified chains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_chain | Yes | Destination chain ID (e.g. 137 for Polygon) | |
| to_token | No | Destination token address (optional, filters connections to specific token) | |
| from_chain | Yes | Source chain ID (e.g. 1 for Ethereum) | |
| from_token | No | Source token address (optional, filters connections to specific token) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description states it shows information without side effects. It does not fully disclose potential limitations or safety guarantees, but the read intent is clear.
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 concise sentences: first states the core function, second adds optional filtering and output details. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.
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 explains the tool shows bridges and exchanges, which is sufficient. Context signals show moderate complexity, and the description covers all necessary aspects.
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 already documents all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces that from_token and to_token are optional filters, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 retrieves available cross-chain connections between two chains, with optional token filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lifi_get_chains and lifi_get_routes by specifying its focus on connections and bridges/exchanges.
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 indicates when to use the tool (to get connections between chains, optionally filtered by tokens). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the tool's purpose is clear enough from context and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_gas_pricesAInspectGet current gas prices for LI.FI-supported chains. Optionally filter by chain IDs. Returns gas prices in native units for each chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chains | No | Comma-separated chain IDs (e.g. '1,137,42161'). Omit for all chains. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states that the tool returns gas prices in native units, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or data freshness.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and then optional detail. Every sentence adds value without 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 (single optional parameter, existence of output schema), the description is adequate. It covers the primary function and return format, though it could optionally note that output schema provides detailed structure.
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% for the single parameter 'chains'. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (comma-separated chain IDs). Given high coverage, a 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 gas prices for LI.FI-supported chains, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'gas prices'. It differentiates from siblings like lifi_get_chains or lifi_get_tokens, which serve distinct purposes.
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 mentions optional filtering by chain IDs but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not fully delineated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_quoteAInspectGet a single best quote for a cross-chain swap or bridge transfer. Returns the optimal route with estimated output, fees, execution time, and transaction data ready to sign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slippage | No | Slippage tolerance as decimal (default 0.03 = 3%) | |
| to_chain | Yes | Destination chain ID (e.g. 137 for Polygon) | |
| to_token | Yes | Destination token address | |
| from_chain | Yes | Source chain ID (e.g. 1 for Ethereum) | |
| from_token | Yes | Source token address (e.g. '0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48' for USDC) | |
| from_amount | Yes | Amount in smallest unit (wei for ETH, base units for ERC-20) | |
| from_address | Yes | Sender wallet address (0x...) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions returning transaction data ready to sign, indicating a quote for potential execution, but lacks detail on limitations (e.g., quote validity, no execution guarantee) or side effects.
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 efficient sentences with no filler. The first sentence clearly states the core function and the second enumerates the key return components.
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?
The description adequately covers purpose and return values; the output schema exists and is likely documented separately. However, it could be more complete by clarifying that it returns only a single quote and how 'best' is determined.
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%, so parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already present.
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 gets a single best quote for cross-chain swaps or bridges, specifying returns including optimal route, estimated output, fees, execution time, and transaction data. It distinguishes from sibling lifi_get_routes by emphasizing 'single best quote'.
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 obtaining a single quote but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like lifi_get_routes. No caveats about prerequisites or when not to use are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_routesAInspectGet multiple route options for a cross-chain swap or bridge transfer, ranked by output amount. Use this for comparing routes across different bridges and DEXes. Returns routes with fees, estimated time, and step-by-step breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slippage | No | Slippage tolerance as decimal (default 0.03 = 3%) | |
| from_amount | Yes | Amount in smallest unit (wei for ETH, base units for ERC-20) | |
| to_chain_id | Yes | Destination chain ID | |
| from_address | Yes | Sender wallet address (0x...) | |
| from_chain_id | Yes | Source chain ID | |
| to_token_address | Yes | Destination token address | |
| from_token_address | Yes | Source token address |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes output: 'Returns routes with fees, estimated time, and step-by-step breakdown.' No side effects or rate limits mentioned, but for a read-only tool 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ranking. Second sentence adds usage tip and output summary. No unnecessary 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?
For a tool with 7 parameters and output schema, description covers core functionality, output content, and usage context. Lacks workflow guidance on how return values are used (e.g., execution), but is otherwise 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal value beyond schema. The description does not elaborate on parameter specifics or provide examples, though schema already describes each field clearly.
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+resource: 'Get multiple route options for a cross-chain swap or bridge transfer, ranked by output amount.' Distinguishes from sibling lifi_get_quote (single quote) by focusing on multiple routes and ranking.
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?
Explicit usage context: 'Use this for comparing routes across different bridges and DEXes.' Implicitly contrasts with lifi_get_quote, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_statusAInspectCheck the status of a cross-chain transfer by transaction hash. Returns status (PENDING, DONE, FAILED, NOT_FOUND), bridge used, source/destination chain info, and amounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bridge | No | Bridge name (optional, e.g. 'stargate', 'hop', 'across') | |
| tx_hash | Yes | Transaction hash to check status for | |
| to_chain | No | Destination chain ID (optional, helps disambiguate) | |
| from_chain | No | Source chain ID (optional, helps disambiguate) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return values (status, bridge, chain info, amounts) and implies a read-only check. Missing details like error handling or network dependence, but sufficient for a simple status tool.
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. First sentence front-loads the action and primary input, second sentence lists key outputs. 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?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description succinctly covers the purpose and main output fields. It provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns, without needing additional details.
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 mainly states that the tool works 'by transaction hash', reinforcing the required parameter, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for optional parameters like bridge or chain IDs.
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 verb 'check status' and the resource 'cross-chain transfer', specifying the method 'by transaction hash'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lifi_get_quote or lifi_get_routes by focusing on status 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 implies usage when a transaction hash is available and status is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings. Context is clear but guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_tokenAInspectGet detailed information about a specific token on a specific chain, including address, symbol, decimals, name, and logo URI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | Yes | Chain ID (e.g. 1 for Ethereum, 137 for Polygon, 42161 for Arbitrum) | |
| token_address | Yes | Token contract address (e.g. '0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48' for USDC on Ethereum). Use '0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000' for native tokens. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'get' (read operation) but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the token is not found. Minimal behavioral insight.
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, front-loaded with the action, no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.
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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality. It omits edge cases or error handling, but the schema and output schema complement it fairly well.
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%, so the schema already describes both parameters well. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond confirming the purpose, which is already clear from 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's purpose: getting detailed information about a specific token on a specific chain, including specific fields. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lifi_get_tokens', which likely retrieves multiple tokens.
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 querying a single token's details, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned, though siblings provide context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_tokensAInspectGet tokens available on LI.FI-supported chains. Optionally filter by chain IDs. Returns token addresses, symbols, decimals, and logos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chains | No | Comma-separated chain IDs to filter tokens (e.g. '1,137,42161'). Omit for all chains. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the return format but does not discuss idempotency, pagination, rate limits, or safety. The information is adequate but lacks depth for a full behavioral profile.
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 efficiently convey purpose and optionality. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.
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?
An output schema exists (not shown) which reduces the need to document return values. The description covers the basics, but could mention default behavior when no chains are specified. Otherwise complete for a list endpoint.
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 schema already explains the 'chains' parameter. The description adds 'Optionally filter by chain IDs' which is redundant with the schema. No additional semantics are provided, 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 retrieves tokens on LI.FI-supported chains, optionally filtered by chain IDs, and lists the return fields (addresses, symbols, decimals, logos). This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like lifi_get_token which likely gets a single token.
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 indicates optional filtering by chain IDs, which gives context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as lifi_get_token or lifi_get_chains, though the sibling list provides implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_toolsAInspectGet available bridge and DEX exchange tools integrated into LI.FI. Returns protocol names, supported chains, and tool types (bridge vs exchange).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns information, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not discuss any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are minimal for a getter tool.
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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and output details. No extraneous information.
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 no parameters and a clear output (and an existing output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, leaving no gaps.
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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description adds meaning by detailing what the output contains, which is beyond the schema's information. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 available bridge and DEX exchange tools integrated into LI.FI.' It specifies the output (protocol names, supported chains, tool types), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lifi_get_chains and lifi_get_tokens.
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 or when not to use this tool. The description explains what it returns but does not mention alternatives or context for choosing this over other tools.
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!
