Clinician-reviewed library on ADHD in children — evaluation, treatment, school, parenting.
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.
Average 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: citation, retrieval, crisis resources, site info, listing, and search. There is no overlapping functionality; an agent can easily select the appropriate tool for the task.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (cite_article, get_article, list_articles, search_articles, get_crisis_resources, get_microsite_info). This uniformity makes the toolset predictable and easy to navigate.
With only 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a content library. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy, keeping the surface area manageable for agents.
The set covers the full read-only lifecycle of the article library: listing, searching, fetching, and citing. Including crisis resources and site information rounds out the server's purpose without missing any obvious operations for the intended domain.
cite_articleCite articleAGet a formatted citation for a ADHD in Children article. Supports AMA, APA, and Chicago styles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug. | |
| format | No | Citation style (default ama). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds the supported citation styles (AMA, APA, Chicago), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior or the exact format of the returned citation, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no filler content. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists supported styles, making it easy to scan. The minor grammatical issue ('a ADHD') does not impact clarity or efficiency.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, readOnly annotation), the description is largely complete. It states the tool's purpose and supported styles, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could ideally mention that the output is a citation string, but the description and schema together cover the essential information.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (slug and format), so the schema already documents all necessary details. The description's mention of AMA, APA, and Chicago styles adds no new information beyond the enum values. Thus, the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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's action ('Get a formatted citation') and the resource ('an ADHD in Children article'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_article (which retrieves full content) and search_articles by focusing specifically on citation formatting. The meaning is unambiguous despite a minor grammatical error.
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 makes the context of use clear: when a formatted citation is needed, this is the tool to use. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct purpose relative to sibling tools provides enough guidance for an agent to select it correctly. No prerequisites are mentioned, but none are apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_articleGet articleAFetch a single article from ADHD in Children by slug. Returns title, body content, author, clinical reviewer, citations, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Article slug. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint already declares the safe read nature, and the description adds value by listing the returned fields (title, body, author, citations, metadata) and the source domain. No contradictions.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences cover the action, source, input, and output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, input requirement, and return content. No gaps remain for effective 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 for the slug parameter is 100% with the description 'Article slug.' The description merely repeats 'by slug' without adding deeper semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the specific action 'Fetch a single article from ADHD in Children by slug' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_articles and search_articles by emphasizing 'single' and 'by slug'.
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?
Usage is implied—use when you have a slug to fetch one article—but no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it is provided. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_crisis_resourcesGet crisis resourcesAReturn the canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload. Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
ReadOnlyHint annotation covers safety; description adds that the payload is canonical and includes 988/911/Crisis Text Line, giving the agent content expectations beyond the annotation.
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 purpose, every word earns its place.
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, read-only tool with an explicit usage trigger and content description, the definition is fully complete.
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?
Tool has zero parameters; input schema is empty, so there are no semantics to clarify. Baseline 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 verb 'Return' with the specific resource (canonical 988/911/Crisis Text Line payload), clearly distinguishing it from sibling article/microsite tools.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.' Clear condition with no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_microsite_infoAbout this micrositeAIdentity and links for ADHD in Children: tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship to Emora Health, and key URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds value by enumerating the exact information returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as error handling or link availability.
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 concise sentence that packs all relevant information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the subject and uses a clear list format.
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 parameterless read-only tool, the description fully specifies the scope of returned information. There is no output schema, but the enumeration covers all needed context, leaving no obvious gaps.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by describing the content of the output, making it clear what the agent will receive despite the empty input schema.
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 identifies what the tool returns: identity and links for a specific microsite, listing concrete content categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on articles and crisis resources.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving microsite information but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_article or search_articles. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_articlesList articlesAPaginated list of articles from ADHD in Children. Returns title, slug, summary, and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-indexed). | |
| limit | No | Max results per page (default 30, max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing pagination and the specific fields returned (title, slug, summary, URL). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and return fields without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 list tool with no required parameters, a readOnly hint, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states the source, pagination, and return fields, which sufficiently covers the agent's needs for correct invocation.
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% and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for both page and limit parameters, including defaults and maximums. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Paginated list of articles') and a clear resource ('from ADHD in Children'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like search_articles and get_article by focusing on a paginated listing of all articles. It also names the return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage for browsing or fetching all articles via pagination, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives such as search_articles for filtering. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_articlesSearch articlesASearch ADHD in Children's editorial corpus by query. Returns title, slug, summary, and URL for matching articles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Alternate parameter name for `query`. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text search query. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return payload (title, slug, summary, URL), giving the agent a clear expectation of output. No contradictions 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. It efficiently conveys purpose and return format without redundancy.
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?
Given the simple tool, clear annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains what the tool searches, the scope (editorial corpus), and what is returned, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly despite lacking an 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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (q, limit, query). The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's verb ('Search') and resource ('ADHD in Children's editorial corpus'), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_articles by specifying search-by-query behavior. It also lists return fields, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies the tool is for free-text search queries against the editorial corpus, which clearly separates it from list_articles or get_article. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!