Sharebench
Server Details
Sharebench — search & pull AI skills, agents, prompts & playbooks (SKILL.md) into any MCP client
- 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 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search for discovery and get_by_id for retrieval of specific artifact content. No overlap exists.
Tool names follow different conventions: 'search' is a lone verb, while 'get_by_id' uses verb_preposition_noun snake_case. They are readable but inconsistent.
Only 2 tools for a registry that likely needs full lifecycle management (create, update, delete). The count is too thin for the apparent scope.
The tool set covers only read operations (search + retrieve). Missing create, update, delete tools for a registry, which is a significant gap.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_by_idAInspect
Fetch the full SKILL.md content and metadata for a single artifact. Provide EXACTLY ONE of artifactId (the UUID returned by search) or slug (the URL-safe identifier, e.g. from a /p/<slug> link). Passing both or neither returns a validation_failed error. Use this after search to retrieve the body of a hit the user wants to read, summarize, apply, or fork. Returns the artifact's name, description, type, contributor, version, timestamps, the full SKILL.md text (YAML frontmatter + markdown body, up to 256 KB), the number of bundled extras (bundledCount), their filenames (bundledFilenames), per-file metadata in bundledFiles (each entry has key, filename, and originalRef — the EXACT body-relative reference string the importer matched, or null when the file was bundled without a body reference; use this to translate a link span in the body back to its bundle filename), and the public-surface fields slug, authorCredit, industries. To fetch a bundled extra, read it as a resource at artifact://<artifactId>/bundled/<filename>.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | URL slug for the artifact (e.g. `brand-voice`). Take this from the `slug` field of a `search` result or a /p/<slug> link. Mutually exclusive with `artifactId`. | |
| artifactId | No | UUID of the artifact. Take this from the `artifactId` field of a `search` result. Mutually exclusive with `slug`. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses mutual exclusivity, error behavior, return fields, size limit (256 KB), and resource URI for bundled extras. It is thorough and 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 front-loaded with purpose and constraint, then details return values. It is longer but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but good structure.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing all return fields with explanations, including size limit and resource URI. It covers complexity well and is complete for a single-artifact fetch 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 adds value beyond schema by explaining mutual exclusivity, error condition, and where to get parameter values (from search result).
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 it fetches full SKILL.md content and metadata for a single artifact. It uses specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'artifact', and distinguishes from sibling 'search' by explaining it is used after search to retrieve body of a hit.
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 to provide exactly one of artifactId or slug, and to use after search. It also mentions the error condition for both or neither. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use, but overall clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchAInspect
Search this workspace's published artifacts (skills, agents, workflows, and knowledge documents in SKILL.md format). Returns ranked metadata — name, description, type, contributor, timestamps, bundledCount, slug, authorCredit, and industries — but NOT the full body. To read an artifact's content, call get_by_id with the returned artifactId (or slug), or read it as a resource at artifact://<artifactId>. Use this whenever the user wants to find, discover, browse, or filter existing artifacts before reading or contributing. Modes: hybrid (default; combines lexical and semantic ranking via reciprocal rank fusion — best for most queries), bm25 (exact-keyword or name lookups), semantic (concept matching when the user's terms differ from artifact text). Pass industries: ['marketing', 'legal'] to narrow results to artifacts tagged with ANY of those industries (keyword-array overlap). If hybrid silently degrades because the embedding service is unavailable, the response's warnings array will contain embedding_degraded:hybrid-fell-back-to-bm25 — surface this to the user if precision matters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Ranking strategy. Default: hybrid. | |
| type | No | Filter by artifact category. Omit for all types. | |
| limit | No | Maximum hits to return. Default: 20. | |
| query | Yes | Free-text query. Names, phrases, or natural-language concepts. | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset for navigating result sets. | |
| industries | No | Filter to artifacts tagged with ANY of these industry slugs (keyword-array overlap). Up to 5 values. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it returns metadata not body, explains mode-specific behavior (hybrid falls back to bm25 if embedding service unavailable), and specifies that warnings array will contain fallback info. No contradictions present.
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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured: it opens with core purpose, then lists what is returned, usage instructions, and mode details. Every sentence adds information; however, slight redundancy (e.g., mentioning `get_by_id` twice) could be trimmed.
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 complexity (6 parameters, 3 modes, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: return values, mode semantics, pagination, industry filtering, fallback behavior, and relationship to sibling tool. No critical information is missing.
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%, but the description adds substantial value beyond schema by detailing mode differences (hybrid, bm25, semantic), explaining how `industries` filtering works (keyword-array overlap), and describing fallback behavior for hybrid mode. This helps an agent choose correct parameter values.
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 searches published artifacts (skills, agents, workflows, knowledge documents) and specifies that it returns ranked metadata, not full body. It distinguishes from sibling `get_by_id` by directing users to that tool for content retrieval.
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 advises when to use this tool: 'Use this whenever the user wants to find, discover, browse, or filter existing artifacts before reading or contributing.' It also explains when to use sibling tool `get_by_id` for full content, but does not explicitly list situations where this tool should not be used.
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!