Semantic search over the Stoic corpus — Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, Seneca's essays, and Epictetus' Discourses, Enchiridion and Fragments. Search by theme or citation, fetch any passage, or get the daily reflection. Public domain translations, no auth.
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 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: daily reflection, citation-based retrieval, and semantic search. The cross-references in descriptions (e.g., 'use get_entry when you already know the exact citation') further resolve any potential overlap.
get_entry and search_texts follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, but daily_reflection is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase. The underscore style is consistent, so this is a minor deviation.
Three tools are well-scoped for a focused Stoic text and reflection service, covering the core needs without redundancy or bloat.
The server provides a complete set for its read-only domain: discovery via search, direct retrieval via citation, and a daily featured reflection. No obvious gaps that would hinder typical use.
daily_reflectionAGet today's date-seeded Stoic reflection and its AI commentary (if generated). The same passage is returned for every caller on a given UTC date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | |
| text | Yes | |
| entry | Yes | |
| source | Yes | |
| meditation | No | Pre-generated commentary, null if not yet written. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that the reflection is date-seeded, deterministic ('the same passage is returned for every caller'), and tied to UTC. It also clarifies that AI commentary may or may not be present ('if generated'), providing important behavioral context.
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 front-loads the core purpose and immediately adds valuable behavioral notes. No waste or 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?
With zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations indicating read-only and closed-world behavior, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, its deterministic nature, and the timezone reference. The context is complete for a tool of this simplicity.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate given the absence of any parameter complexity.
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 action ('Get') and the resource ('today's date-seeded Stoic reflection and its AI commentary'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_entry and search_texts by specifying the date-seeded, daily nature of the content.
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 retrieving today's reflection, but does not explicitly mention when to use it compared to alternatives or provide any exclusions. It gives clear context (today's, UTC date) but lacks direct guidance on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_entryAFetch one passage by source, book/chapter, and entry id. Use search_texts when you do not already know the citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | Book or chapter number. | |
| entry | Yes | Entry id; may carry a letter suffix (e.g. '49a'). | |
| source | Yes | meditations | discourses | enchiridion | fragments | seneca-tranquillity | seneca-shortness |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | |
| text | Yes | |
| entry | Yes | |
| source | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the cardinality 'one passage' but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as what happens when the entry does not exist or whether results are deterministic. This is modest added value beyond 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?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core function, and the second points to the sibling tool. No filler or redundant content.
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?
This is a low-complexity lookup tool with a complete schema, annotations, and an output schema. The description supplies the essential context (direct citation lookup) and the relevant alternative, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema carries the full weight. The description only repeats the parameter names in prose without adding new semantic details or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specifies a clear action ('Fetch one passage'), identifies the resource (passage), and names the exact lookup keys (source, book/chapter, entry id). It also distinguishes itself from search_texts by framing this as citation-based 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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use search_texts when you do not already know the citation.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative, satisfying the usage-requirements dimension fully.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_textsASemantic search across the Stoic corpus (Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus). Returns ranked passages with source, book/chapter, entry, text, and score. Does not cover the thematic essays at /notes — those are HTML pages, not corpus entries. Use get_entry instead when you already know the exact citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topK | No | Max results (1-20). | |
| query | Yes | Natural-language query or citation (e.g. '6.26'). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the scope of the search corpus, the exclusion of /notes, and the exact fields returned, which go beyond annotation info.
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 four concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core functionality, output format, scope exclusion, and alternative guidance. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.
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 search tool with a simple parameter set and an output schema, the description covers all relevant context: what is searched, what is returned, what is excluded, and the best alternative. There are no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Both parameters have full descriptions in the input schema, giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning for query or topK beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 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 specific verb 'Semantic search' and names the exact corpus (Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus), with clear output expectations. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_entry, making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
It explicitly states when not to use the tool (thematic essays at /notes are not covered) and directs users to the alternative (get_entry) for exact citations. This provides clear decision criteria for tool selection.
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!
