Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bloom MCP

Bloom MCP

by cotlet-connect
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

bloom_status

Checks that your Cotlet.dev account, credits, and Bloom connection are ready so you can manage clients, invoices, and contracts without setup errors.

Instructions

Check that your Cotlet.dev account and Bloom are ready: account, credits and Bloom connection.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bloom_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what is verified (account, credits, Bloom connection), which usefully scopes the operation as a diagnostic, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, what a failure or partial-failure state looks like, or how results are reported. Adding that the check is non-mutating would have raised this score.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the enumerated checks after the colon, so the key scope lands first. Minor redundancy: 'account' appears both in the main clause and in the enumerated list, costing a sliver of tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial zero-parameter status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but stops short of describing what a response actually contains or how failures are surfaced, which is the main thing an agent needs from a readiness check.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the schema itself is complete and closed (additionalProperties: false). Baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Check') plus the resource ('your Cotlet.dev account and Bloom') and enumerates the three facets verified: account, credits, Bloom connection. This clearly separates it from the action siblings (bloom_click, bloom_open, bloom_type), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies a pre-flight readiness check but gives no explicit guidance on when to call it, whether to call it before other bloom_* tools, or when a different tool is more appropriate. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools