Assess your nonprofit's grant readiness with The Grant Readiness Checklist by the Nonprofit Lau
Structured decision-support tool that evaluates how prepared a nonprofit is to pursue grant funding. It scores the organization across seven weighted grant-readiness areas and returns a 0-100 readiness score, a plain-language readiness tier, a category breakdown, detected risk flags, a prioritized action plan, and grant-packet guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policies | No | Answers for the Policies readiness area (field_id -> value). | |
| financials | No | Answers for the Financials readiness area (field_id -> value). | |
| governance | No | Answers for the Governance readiness area (field_id -> value). | |
| org_background | No | Answers for the Organizational Background readiness area (field_id -> value). | |
| program_project | No | Answers for the Program/Project Fit readiness area (field_id -> value). | |
| supporting_docs | No | Answers for the Supporting Documents readiness area (field_id -> value). | |
| tax_registrations | No | Answers for the Tax & Registrations readiness area (field_id -> value). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | |
| version | Yes | |
| category | Yes | |
| nextSteps | No | |
| riskFlags | No | |
| actionPlan | No | |
| keyFindings | No | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| categoryBreakdown | No | |
| grantPacketGuidance | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the evaluative scoring process and the exact set of returned components, making its computational behavior transparent.
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 a single well-structured sentence that fronts the core purpose ('evaluates how prepared a nonprofit is to pursue grant funding') before enumerating outputs. Every clause adds relevant information with no fluff.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and output components, the input schema explains its flexible input format and default behavior for missing fields, and the output schema handles return structure. Given this richness and the absence of siblings, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so each of the seven readiness-area parameters already has a documented meaning. The main description names the seven areas but adds no per-parameter semantics beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema already provides the necessary detail.
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 precisely identifies the tool as a structured decision-support tool that evaluates nonprofit grant readiness, with a specific list of outputs (score, tier, breakdown, flags, action plan, guidance). Even without siblings, it fully conveys the tool's function and result.
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 clearly establishes the use case: assessing how prepared a nonprofit is to pursue grant funding. No sibling tools exist, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary, but there is no when-not-to-use guidance for edge cases like incomplete data.
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.
assess_grant_readinessClaiming 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!
Grant readiness and application checklist generator for schools/PTAs/nonprofits.
Foundation discovery and grant intelligence for nonprofits. 174K+ US funders, IRS 990 data.
Find US federal grants your organization is actually eligible to apply for. Free, no API key.
Fire department grant-readiness helper.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single tool has a clearly defined purpose of assessing grant readiness.
The tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('assess_grant_readiness'), which is descriptive and would fit a consistent naming scheme even if more tools were present.
With only one tool, the server feels thin for its apparent scope, but the tool itself is comprehensive enough to stand alone. The count is borderline rather than extreme.
The tool covers a full assessment lifecycle: scoring, tiering, breakdown, risk flags, action plan, and grant-packet guidance. If document generation is expected from 'The Document Pro' part of the server name, this is a minor gap, but the core domain is well covered.