Render HTML, URLs, and templates to PDF. AI drafts templates and fixes them from logs.
Check whether Leafwright MCP is authenticated. Completes a pending browser login if approved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| token | No | |
| status | Yes | |
| next_step | No | |
| user_code | No | |
| expires_at | No | |
| token_source | No | |
| active_project_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, meaning the tool should not modify state. The description states the tool 'Completes a pending browser login if approved,' which is a state-changing action. This directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation, so the description fails to transparently describe the tool's true behavior.
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 short and front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is compact, though it introduces an ambiguous and contradictory side effect. Overall, there is no redundancy or wasted text.
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 zero parameters and an output schema, the basic purpose is covered. However, the contradictory side-effect statement means an agent cannot reliably determine whether calling this tool will mutate authentication state. The pending-login approval flow is also unexplained, making the description incomplete for confident tool selection.
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 zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. This is the baseline score for a zero-parameter tool; no parameter documentation is needed in the description.
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 states a clear primary purpose: 'Check whether Leafwright MCP is authenticated.' This is a specific verb and resource. However, the second sentence about completing a pending browser login blurs the distinction from the sibling tool leafwright_login, so sibling differentiation is not fully explicit.
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 use case is implied by the phrase 'Check whether Leafwright MCP is authenticated.' The conditional 'Completes a pending browser login if approved' provides some context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of leafwright_login or leafwright_logout, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start a browser login flow for Leafwright MCP. Open the returned URL, choose an organization and project, then call leafwright_auth_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_name | No | Optional client name shown in Leafwright. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| next_step | Yes | |
| user_code | Yes | |
| expires_at | Yes | |
| verification_url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that this tool starts an interactive browser flow and returns a URL requiring manual follow-up. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds the important detail that the agent must open the URL and that user interaction is required.
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 convey the action, the returned artifact, the required user steps, and the next tool call with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and ends with an actionable directive.
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 login-flow starter with one optional parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the full workflow: what the tool does, what to do with its result, and what to call next. Nothing essential is missing.
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%: the only parameter, client_name, is already described as an optional string shown in Leafwright. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific action ('Start a browser login flow') tied to a clear resource ('Leafwright MCP'). It also names the follow-up tool, leafwright_auth_status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools by signaling the beginning of the auth lifecycle.
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 gives clear sequential instructions: open the returned URL, choose an organization and project, then call leafwright_auth_status. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with leafwright_logout, but the intended workflow and next step are unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Revoke the stored Leafwright MCP token and clear local auth state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and is non-destructive. The description adds the specific behavioral detail that it revokes the stored token and clears local auth state, which goes beyond the generic annotation hints. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Revoke...') and adds the secondary effect ('clear local auth state') without wasted words. The structure is efficient and immediately scannable.
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 zero-parameter authentication mutation, the description fully covers what the tool does. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and the sibling tools provide sufficient surrounding context.
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 takes zero parameters and the schema reflects this with 100% coverage. There is nothing for the description to add, and the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'revoke' and identifies the resource ('stored Leafwright MCP token') plus the additional action 'clear local auth state'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools leafwright_login (acquire token) and leafwright_auth_status (check state).
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The usage context is implied by the sibling names and the straightforward logout action, but there is no explicit guidance about when-not-to-use or alternative selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
leafwright_auth_statusleafwright_loginleafwright_logoutClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Generate HTML to PDF documents in bulk or single — raw replacements or based on conditions, loops
Turn an HTML template plus JSON into a finished PDF: a quote, invoice, work order or certificate.
Generate images and PDFs from HTML/CSS, live websites, and reusable templates.
Generate PDFs from templates via AI chat. Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, and any MCP client.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct auth lifecycle role: starting a login, checking/completing auth status, and revoking the token. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools share the leafwright_ prefix and use simple action-oriented names. login and logout are clean verbs, while auth_status is slightly more noun-like, but the pattern is predictable and readable.
Three tools is well-scoped for an authentication-focused server. Each tool earns its place and the count matches the domain's narrow purpose.
The tool set covers the full auth lifecycle: initiate login, check/complete status, and logout. There are no obvious dead ends or missing essential operations for managing Leafwright authentication.
