preflight-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| PREFLIGHT_API_KEY | No | API key for authenticated requests | |
| PREFLIGHT_API_URL | No | API base URL | https://preflight.beamt.io |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_reliabilityA | Look up the independent reliability rating for an API or MCP server. Like checking a restaurant's reviews before booking — see the real uptime, latency, error rate, and community experience before you commit to a service. Returns a trust score (0-100), current operational status, trend direction, and any known issues. Scores are based on independent synthetic probes and crowdsourced telemetry from real agent traffic — not vendor self-reporting. Args: service: Service slug (e.g., 'stripe-mcp', 'openai-api') or partial name metrics: Optional list of specific metrics to include: 'uptime', 'latency', 'reliability', 'maintenance', 'community' |
| compare_servicesA | Compare reliability ratings across multiple services side by side. Like reading comparative reviews — see which provider has the best track record for uptime, latency, and real-world reliability right now. Returns services ranked by the chosen metric with a recommendation and the reasoning behind it. Args: services: List of service slugs to compare (max 10) sort_by: Metric to sort by — 'overall', 'uptime', 'latency', 'reliability' |
| report_outcomeA | Leave a review — report the outcome of an API or MCP server call you just made. Like writing a TrustPilot review, your report contributes to the community reliability rating for that service. The more agents that report, the more accurate the ratings become for everyone. Args: service: Service slug that was called outcome: Result — 'success', 'error', 'timeout', or 'unexpected' latency_ms: Response time in milliseconds (if available) error_type: If outcome was 'error', the category: 'auth', 'rate_limit', 'server', 'network', 'parse', 'other' |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_reliability evaluates a single service, compare_services compares multiple services side-by-side, and report_outcome submits user feedback. There is no overlap in functionality—an agent would never confuse which tool to use for a given task.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, descriptive names: check_reliability, compare_services, and report_outcome. The naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy for agents to understand each tool's function at a glance.
With only 3 tools, the server feels slightly thin for its reliability-checking domain. While the tools cover core functions, additional utilities like listing top-rated services or fetching historical trends might be expected. However, the count is not severely inadequate.
The toolset covers the essential reliability workflow: checking individual services, comparing them, and contributing data. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to fetch aggregated reliability data (e.g., a leaderboard or trending services), but agents can work around this by using compare_services with a predefined list.