Claude Connectors Submission: Prepare for Directory Review

Submitting a connector to Anthropic's Claude connector directory means passing a review that checks your connector's scope, documentation, and behavior before it appears in the catalog. The process rewards connectors that are specific, clearly scoped, and tested before submission. Good preparation prevents delays from back-and-forth over missing details.

Keeping your release tasks, evidence links, and approval decisions organized before you submit makes the whole process easier to track. A tool like fenbs keeps those references alongside the decisions your team made, so nothing gets lost in a chat thread while you wait for a response.

What the directory review involves

Anthropic reviews submitted connectors before adding them to the public catalog. The review checks what data the connector can read or write, what permissions it requests, how it handles authentication, and whether the description matches the actual behavior. Anthropic may ask for clarification or request changes before approving.

Requirements change over time. Check Anthropic's developer documentation↗ (opens in a new tab) for the current submission form, required fields, and review criteria before you start preparing. Reading the current instructions first prevents work on materials that no longer match what reviewers need.

For an overview of what Claude connectors are and how they work in practice, see Claude connectors explained before following the submission steps here.

What to check before you submit

Work through this list before opening the submission form. Reviewers see the same issues repeatedly, and resolving them in advance speeds the process.

• Scope: the connector should do one job clearly. A connector that reads project status from one system is easier to review than one that reads and writes across several.
• Permissions: request only the access the connector needs. Each permission you request is something a reviewer must evaluate. Unused or overly broad permissions slow the review.
• Authentication: confirm the connector uses a supported authentication method and that the flow works end to end in a test account.
• Description and icon: the connector's name, description, and icon should describe exactly what it does. Reviewers compare these to the actual connector behavior.
• Error handling: the connector should return useful messages when access fails. A reviewer testing it should see clear output, not a silent failure.

How to document what your connector does

Documentation is not just for reviewers. If someone asks six months later why a permission was included, you want a written record of the reason. Document the scope of each action, the data it reads or writes, how it authenticates, and any known limits such as rate limits or read-only restrictions.

Include examples of what the connector returns. A reviewer checking whether the description matches the behavior can verify it faster with a real output sample. Keep a copy of this documentation alongside the connector code, not only in the submission form.

If your connector connects to Microsoft 365 or another common platform, note any platform-specific permission requirements or account type restrictions that affect how it works.

Test the connector in Claude before you submit

Testing before submission is the single step most likely to catch problems that would otherwise delay review. Use a Team or Enterprise account to connect the connector, then ask Claude to use each action in a realistic scenario. Verify that the output matches what the documentation says the connector returns.

Test with limited permissions as well as full access, so you know what happens when a user connects with fewer rights than your development account. A connector that silently returns empty results in that case is harder to debug in production than one that returns a clear message explaining the missing access.

Track submission tasks and evidence in one place

A submission often spans several days or weeks: writing documentation, testing, fixing a permissions issue, waiting for review, responding to questions, and finalizing the listing. Keeping the current state of those tasks and the links to evidence in one place prevents work from stalling because someone forgot which issue is outstanding.

fenbs keeps your submission tasks, evidence links, and the decisions behind each choice organized across sessions. When Anthropic asks why you requested a particular permission, the reasoning is in your Decisions and rules, not in a chat from three weeks ago. The links and listings feature tracks where the submission stands and its current status.

How to do this with fenbs

1. Create a free account and add a project for the connector submission.
2. Add tasks for each preparation step: documentation, testing, permissions review, and the submission itself. Move each to In Progress when you start it.
3. Record the decisions behind your permission choices as Decisions and rules. Include the reason and who approved the scope. This is your evidence when a reviewer asks.
4. Add the submission form URL and Anthropic's documentation link to Links. Note the submission date and current status so you can update it when you hear back.
5. When Anthropic responds, add their feedback as a comment on the relevant task and record the resulting decision before you act on it.

fenbs is free for one person. For a team working on the connector together, a team workspace lets members see the same tasks, links, and decisions without sharing a single account.

The neighbor pages cover related areas: research connectors, connectors versus plugins, and how to create a connector. Each owns its own question.