F
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceEnables AI assistants to retrieve, search, and compare procurement documents using hybrid retrieval and MCP integration.
-
MCP CPG Human in the Loop (HITL)
Server Details
Navigator for BPC Agentic Procurement
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- greencore-solutions/cpg-human-in-the-loop
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- MCP CPG Human in the Loop (HITL)
Available Tools
4 toolscheck_rfq_statusCheck ticket statusAInspect
Poll a ticket previously lodged on this MCP (RFQ, terms request, or escalation). Returns current status and, once a human has answered, the answer.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ticket_id | Yes | Ticket ID returned at submission, e.g. HITL-20260719-A1B2C3 |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns current status and an answer when available, and implies a polling behavior. It does not mention side effects, but the behavior is clear.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
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?
For a simple poll tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input expectation, and return value. It does not explain how to obtain the ticket_id from sibling tools, but that is implicit.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and already describes the ticket_id parameter with format. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('ticket previously lodged'), and lists the ticket types (RFQ, terms request, escalation), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools that create tickets.
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 implies usage after submitting a ticket via sibling tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
escalateEscalate to a human (CPG-451)AInspect
Hand a matter that cannot be resolved deterministically to GSC Navigator human review. Emits CPG-451 ESCALATE. Returns a ticket ID for polling via check_rfq_status.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | Yes | What was attempted, what could not be resolved, and why | |
| subject | Yes | One-line summary of the matter | |
| related_ticket | No | Optional earlier ticket this relates to | |
| requester_name | Yes | Requesting organization or agent operator | |
| requester_contact | Yes | Reply channel: email or URL a human can answer to |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the core side-effect (handoff to human review), names the emitted signal (CPG-451 ESCALATE), and states the return value (ticket ID). It does not mention irreversibility or downstream human-review behavior, but the main behavioral traits 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 tight sentences with no filler. The trigger condition is front-loaded, followed by the emitted code and the return behavior. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to invoke correctly: when to use it, what happens, and how to follow up via check_rfq_status. It could add a bit more about what CPG-451 means or post-escalation expectations, but nothing essential is missing for initial use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all five parameters well. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Hand to... human review') and names the exact resource (GSC Navigator, CPG-451 ESCALATE). Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_rfq or check_rfq_status by focusing on deterministic failures that require human intervention.
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?
States the activation condition explicitly: matters that cannot be resolved deterministically. It also points to check_rfq_status for polling the resulting ticket, but does not explicitly say when not to use request_terms or submit_rfq, so it lacks full exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_termsRequest termsAInspect
Ask a commercial or procedural question — terms, conditions, eligibility context, process. The question is lodged as a ticket and a human answers it. Returns a ticket ID for polling via check_rfq_status.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subject | Yes | One-line summary of the question | |
| question | Yes | The question a human should answer | |
| related_ticket | No | Optional earlier ticket this relates to | |
| requester_name | Yes | Requesting organization or agent operator | |
| requester_contact | Yes | Reply channel: email or URL a human can answer to |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by revealing the asynchronous nature ('lodged as a ticket and a human answers it'), the output contract ('Returns a ticket ID'), and the polling pathway. It does not mention failure modes or persistence details, but the essential behavior is 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?
Three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third states the return value and follow-up step. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a ticket-creation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description provides the key operational context: human-mediated answering, asynchronous processing, and a ticket ID for polling. It is slightly thin on how it relates to escalate, but the schema covers parameter formats and the core workflow is clear.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the question parameter is what a human answers and that the response is a ticket ID, but it does not enrich individual parameter semantics beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb ('Ask') and a clear resource ('commercial or procedural question'), then enumerates topic examples such as terms, conditions, eligibility, and process. It also distinguishes its output (a ticket ID for check_rfq_status) from the RFQ-focused sibling submit_rfq.
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?
It clearly states when to use this tool: when a human should answer a commercial or procedural question. It also tells the agent to poll via check_rfq_status afterward. It does not explicitly contrast with escalate or submit_rfq, so full when-not-to-use guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_rfqSubmit RFQAInspect
Lodge a request-for-quotation with GreenCore Solutions Corp. A human reviews and answers every ticket — no order is decided by this tool. Returns a ticket ID for polling via check_rfq_status. Optionally reference a GTIN resolved on mcp.cpgknowledgegraph.ai and an SM-ECO-10060 market code.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gtin | No | Optional GTIN reference (as resolved on the CPG Knowledge Graph) | |
| market | No | Optional SM-ECO-10060 member code, e.g. FR, AU, MX | |
| details | Yes | Full request: product, volumes, timing, destination | |
| subject | Yes | One-line summary of the RFQ | |
| quantity | No | Optional quantity / volume expression | |
| requester_name | Yes | Requesting organization or agent operator | |
| requester_contact | Yes | Reply channel: email or URL a human can answer to |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a human reviews every ticket, that no order is decided by this tool, and that it returns a ticket ID. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare act of submitting.
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?
Three focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the human-review behavior, the return-value workflow, and optional reference context in a natural order. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description correctly states what is returned (a ticket ID) and what to do with it. Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage, the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and understand the follow-up step.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of GTIN and market code largely restates the schema's own parameter descriptions rather than adding new meaning. Required fields and their purposes are already fully documented in the 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?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Lodge a request-for-quotation with GreenCore Solutions Corp.') and clarifies this is a ticket submission, not an order-decision tool. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling check_rfq_status by stating it returns a ticket ID for polling.
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 clearly places the tool in a workflow: submit the RFQ, then poll via check_rfq_status. However, it does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus request_terms or escalate, so only partial alternatives guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
- Changed
escalate1 field changed- removed
Input schema / properties / agent_cardRemoved value: -{ - "description": "Optional: your A2A agent card URL or hostname — verified at task acceptance (JWS over RFC 8785). VERIFIED handshakes enter the guest book at gsc-handshake.ai by name.", - "maxLength": 300, - "type": "string" -}
- Changed
request_terms1 field changed- removed
Input schema / properties / agent_cardRemoved value: -{ - "description": "Optional: your A2A agent card URL or hostname — verified at task acceptance (JWS over RFC 8785). VERIFIED handshakes enter the guest book at gsc-handshake.ai by name.", - "maxLength": 300, - "type": "string" -}
- Changed
submit_rfq1 field changed- removed
Input schema / properties / agent_cardRemoved value: -{ - "description": "Optional: your A2A agent card URL or hostname — verified at task acceptance (JWS over RFC 8785). VERIFIED handshakes enter the guest book at gsc-handshake.ai by name.", - "maxLength": 300, - "type": "string" -}
3 tool updates
- Changed
escalate1 field changed- added
Input schema / properties / agent_cardAdded value: +{ + "description": "Optional: your A2A agent card URL or hostname — verified at task acceptance (JWS over RFC 8785). VERIFIED handshakes enter the guest book at gsc-handshake.ai by name.", + "maxLength": 300, + "type": "string" +}
- Changed
request_terms1 field changed- added
Input schema / properties / agent_cardAdded value: +{ + "description": "Optional: your A2A agent card URL or hostname — verified at task acceptance (JWS over RFC 8785). VERIFIED handshakes enter the guest book at gsc-handshake.ai by name.", + "maxLength": 300, + "type": "string" +}
- Changed
submit_rfq1 field changed- added
Input schema / properties / agent_cardAdded value: +{ + "description": "Optional: your A2A agent card URL or hostname — verified at task acceptance (JWS over RFC 8785). VERIFIED handshakes enter the guest book at gsc-handshake.ai by name.", + "maxLength": 300, + "type": "string" +}
4 tool updates
- First observed
check_rfq_status - First observed
escalate - First observed
request_terms - First observed
submit_rfq
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming 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 asio.github.acme/serveralso 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.jsonon 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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
BPC Agentic Commerce Signals
BPC Agentic Commerce Infra
BPC Sustainable Carrier Agents - Low Token Zero Inference
CPG sourcing for AI Agents with x402: BPC brands, agent IM, Trading Desk. GreenCore Solutions Corp.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI-powered procurement policy compliance, document generation, supplier management, budget verification, and analytics through standardized MCP tools.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that automates the procurement workflow, including RFQ generation, quote parsing, ERP item loading, and purchase requisition submission with human-in-the-loop approval gates.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenancePredictive supply-chain MCP server that forecasts material confirmation risks and enables AI clients to interact with the system via natural language.MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Four tools split along clear lines: check_rfq_status is the polling function, while the other three are distinct ticket-creation pathways. There is minor potential for confusion between requesting terms and escalating an unresolved matter, but the descriptions differentiate them well enough.
Naming Consistency4/5
Three of the four names follow an imperative verb_noun pattern: check_rfq_status, request_terms, and submit_rfq. escalate is a single imperative verb, which is a minor deviation, but the overall naming style remains uniform and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a human-in-the-loop adapter: three entry points for the supported ticket types and one status-checking/polling function. Each tool earns its place and there is no redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The server covers the full workflow it advertises: create RFQs, terms requests, or escalations, then poll for the human-provided answer. Additional operations such as cancellation or bulk listing are not implied by the stated HITL purpose.