exchange-ai-connector

by wteja

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation within either the calendar or email domain, with no overlapping purposes. check_availability, create_event, list_events, and read_event are clearly separate; similarly for email tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., check_availability, list_emails). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verbs.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools covering both email and calendar operations, the count is well-scoped for the connector's purpose. Each tool serves a clear function without superfluous entries.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers essential read and create operations but lacks update and delete for calendar events, and email deletion or folder management. These are notable gaps for a full lifecycle.
Average 3.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 13 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 30, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description repeats 'Read-only' which is already provided by the readOnlyHint annotation, adding no new behavioral insight beyond what annotations already supply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not overly verbose but sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description fails to explain what 'in full' means regarding returned fields or how to obtain the event_id, making it insufficient for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description offers no explanation of the event_id parameter, such as its format or source, leaving the agent without needed context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'one calendar event in full', distinguishing it from siblings like list_events (list multiple) and read_email (read email).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_availability or list_events. The description lacks context for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'read-only' is redundant. It adds 'oldest first' ordering, which is useful. However, no disclosure of pagination, message count limits, or format details is provided.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be expanded to include parameter guidance without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (1 required param, no enums) and existence of an output schema, the description should at least define the parameter. The lack of parameter description makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'conversation_id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain its purpose or expected format. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool reads all messages in a conversation in chronological order. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_emails' (which lists threads) and 'read_email' (single email) by mentioning 'conversation', but does not explicitly differentiate them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'read_email' or 'list_emails'. For example, it doesn't clarify that this tool fetches the full thread content while 'list_emails' might only return metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds 'Read-only' (redundant) and 'in full' implying complete content, but doesn't specify what 'full' includes (e.g., attachments, headers).
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?
Two short, direct sentences with no filler, but could be expanded to include more useful information without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks description of return value (e.g., fields like subject, body, sender) and error conditions. With no output schema, description should cover these for a complete read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description provides no additional meaning for the 'message_id' parameter beyond its type, such as format or expected ID structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Read' and resource 'one message in full'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'list_emails' (summaries) and 'read_thread' (thread).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_emails' for previewing or 'read_thread' for threaded view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true; the description merely repeats 'Read-only' without additional behavioral context such as time horizon or absence of events.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the action and ordering.
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?
Adequate for a simple list operation given output schema exists, but fails to clarify the scope of 'upcoming' or the meaning of the 'top' parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'top' parameter, leaving its meaning and default behavior undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), resource (calendar events), and ordering (soonest first), effectively differentiating it from mutation tools like create_event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'read-only' but does not explicitly guide when to use list_events over alternatives like read_event or check_availability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms 'Read-only'. However, no additional behavioral traits like pagination, default order, or that it returns summaries not full content are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and safety trait.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having output schema, description lacks parameter context for 3 parameters. No mention of query syntax, folder usage, or top limits. Incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. Description does not explain what 'top', 'query', or 'folder' mean or how they affect the result. Fails to add meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List messages in a mail folder' with verb 'list' and resource 'messages'. Read-only qualifier distinguishes from mutation siblings like send_email.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like read_email (single message) or check_availability. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true; the description adds 'IRREVERSIBLE' and client confirmation requirement, providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each essential: first states the action, second provides critical caution. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. Missing details on how to reply (reply_to_id), use cc, or format the body. The irreversible warning is good but incomplete for a sending tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameters are documented in the description. The description fails to add any meaning to the five parameters (to, subject, body, cc, reply_to_id), which severely limits agent understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Send or reply to an email,' which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like read_email or list_emails. The description differentiates the tool's action well.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly warns 'IRREVERSIBLE' and requires client confirmation, providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Read-only' is redundant. However, it adds useful behavioral details like time format and default attendees, which are not in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, time format, defaults. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple, has an output schema (not shown but present), and operates in a calendar context, the description covers essential aspects. It could include more guidance on when to check availability, but it is adequate.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by clarifying time format for start/end and default behavior for attendees. The interval parameter is not explained, but overall the description adds significant semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Free/busy over a window,' which specifies the verb (check availability) and the resource (free/busy info). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_events and read_event by focusing on availability, not on event details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on time format ('naive local') and default attendees ('just you'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_availability before create_event. The read-only hint is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds key behavioral details beyond annotations: it sends email invites, uses naive local time format, and declares irreversibility. This is consistent with the readonlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true annotations, and provides valuable context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the primary function, the second adds critical format and warning. Every word is necessary, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the irreversible action and the time format. However, it does not mention return value (e.g., event ID) or any prerequisites (e.g., calendar must exist). Slightly incomplete, but sufficient for a moderately complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the time format (naive local, example value). The parameter names (subject, start, end, body, location, attendees) are self-explanatory, but the description does not elaborate on their purpose or constraints beyond the one hint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'calendar event', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events, read_event, and check_availability by specifying that it also sends email invites to attendees.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says times are naive local with an example format, and warns that the action is irreversible and requires client confirmation. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use this tool beyond the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![exchange-ai-connector MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wteja/exchange-ai-connector/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wteja/exchange-ai-connector)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![exchange-ai-connector MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wteja/exchange-ai-connector/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wteja/exchange-ai-connector)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wteja/exchange-ai-connector'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server