ChurnFlow MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| PUBMED_EMAIL | Yes | Your email address (required by NCBI) | |
| PUBMED_API_KEY | No | Optional API key for higher rate limits |
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
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| captureC | Capture and route text input using ChurnFlow ADHD-friendly AI system |
| statusB | Get ChurnFlow system status and tracker information |
| list_trackersB | List available trackers with their context types and status |
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 with no overlap: 'capture' handles input routing, 'list_trackers' enumerates available trackers, and 'status' provides system-level information. The descriptions clearly differentiate their functions, eliminating any ambiguity in tool selection.
The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern ('list_trackers'), but 'capture' and 'status' are single-word verbs that deviate slightly. While readable and functional, this minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.
With only 3 tools, the count feels thin for a system that appears to manage trackers and input routing, suggesting potential gaps in functionality. It's borderline for the apparent scope, as more operations (e.g., create/update/delete trackers) might be expected.
There are significant gaps in the tool surface for a tracker management system: it lacks CRUD operations for trackers (e.g., create, update, delete) and input handling beyond capture. This incomplete coverage could lead to agent failures when trying to perform basic lifecycle tasks.