Arclan MCP Registry
Server Details
MCP server registry — validated by live handshake, scored on reliability, monitored continuously.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_server retrieves details of a specific server, query_registry searches for servers, and report_server submits usage reports. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_server, query_registry, report_server. This is predictable and clear.
Three tools is appropriate for a registry server focused on discovery and reporting. It is not too few to be useful nor too many to be overwhelming.
The tool set covers the core operations for a registry: searching for servers, getting detailed information, and submitting reports. There are no obvious gaps for the intended use case.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_serverAInspect
Get full details for a specific MCP server by endpoint URL or registry ID. Returns score, state, tools list, latency, and recent test history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | The registry ID (slug) for the server | |
| url | No | The MCP server endpoint URL |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return contents ('score, state, tools list, latency, and recent test history') which implies a read-only operation. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden; while it could explicitly state no side effects, the disclosed return fields sufficiently suggest a query.
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?
Single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, then lists return contents. No unnecessary words, efficiently communicates essential information.
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 simple lookup tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, identification methods, and return fields. Lacks details on mutual exclusivity of params, error cases, or default behavior, but overall sufficient for straightforward use.
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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. Description adds value by clarifying that either id or url can be used, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. This extra context improves parameter understanding.
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?
Description clearly states action ('Get full details'), resource ('specific MCP server'), and identification method ('by endpoint URL or registry ID'). Effectively distinguishes from siblings 'query_registry' and 'report_server'.
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?
Indicates two identification methods but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with siblings beyond naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query_registryAInspect
Search the Arclan registry for MCP servers. By default returns only connectable servers (active, mcp_partial, auth_gated). Use status=stdio to browse local-only servers available for installation. Use status=all to query the full index. Use this before connecting to an MCP server to check its validation status and score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return 1–200 (default 50) | |
| status | No | Filter by state. Default (omit): connectable states only (active + mcp_partial + auth_gated). Use "stdio" for local-install catalog. Use "all" for the full index. | |
| min_score | No | Minimum validation score 0–100 (default 0) | |
| transport | No | Filter by transport type | |
| capability | No | Filter by tool name or keyword (searches name, description, tools) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description lacks details on behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication needs. It adds context on default behavior but does not go beyond what the schema implies.
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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
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?
All parameters are documented in schema. The description provides use-case context and status guidance. Absence of output schema is acceptable; return values can be inferred. Sibling tools not mentioned but not critical for this search tool.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates default behavior for status. No additional parameter insights.
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 clearly states 'Search the Arclan registry for MCP servers' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings (get_server, report_server) by focusing on searching and listing, not detail retrieval or reporting.
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 explains when to use the tool ('Use this before connecting to an MCP server to check its validation status and score.') and provides guidance on status parameter values. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
report_serverAInspect
Submit an agent usage report for an MCP server. Reports are aggregated and influence registry trust scores. Call this after using an MCP server so the registry can track real-world reliability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | No | Identifier for the reporting agent (optional) | |
| outcome | Yes | Result of using the server | |
| latencyMs | No | Total wall-clock latency in milliseconds | |
| serverUrl | Yes | The MCP server endpoint URL that was used | |
| toolsUsed | No | List of tool names that were called | |
| taskCategory | No | Category of task attempted (e.g. "search", "write", "read") | |
| turnsRequired | No | Number of turns to complete the task | |
| taskDescription | No | Brief description of what the task was |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states that reports are aggregated and influence trust scores, but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or auth requirements for this write operation.
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, front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second sentence gives usage guidance. No wasted words.
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 reporting tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose and usage context. It explains that reports are aggregated and affect trust scores, which is sufficient. Missing details like return value are acceptable without output schema.
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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets baseline but does not excel.
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 clearly states the tool submits an agent usage report for an MCP server, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings get_server and query_registry which are for retrieval tasks.
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 explicitly says 'Call this after using an MCP server' providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but sibling names imply alternatives for other purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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!