Open-access rating scales and clinical references for adolescent psychiatry clinicians.
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 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: article discovery (list, search), retrieval (get), citation (cite), site identity (microsite info), and crisis support. No two tools overlap, and the descriptions reinforce their uniqueness.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., cite_article, list_articles, get_crisis_resources). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a read-only article library. It covers discovery, retrieval, citation, site context, and crisis support without unnecessary bloat.
The domain is fully covered: users can search, list, retrieve full articles, generate citations, access site information, and get crisis resources. No critical operations are missing, and the set forms a complete workflow.
cite_articleCite articleAGet a formatted citation for a Psychiatry for Teens 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?
Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds useful context about supported citation styles, which informs the agent of the tool's capabilities. It does not mention error behavior or return formatting, but for a read-only citation tool with good annotations, this is adequate.
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 'Get,' and every word contributes meaning. It is concise without sacrificing necessary information about supported styles.
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 simple tool with two parameters (one required, one defaulted), 100% schema coverage, and a readOnlyHint annotation. The description fully conveys what the tool does and what styles it supports. No output schema exists, but the return value (formatted citation) is clear from the description. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (slug and format) documented. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema; it only reiterates the supported styles already present in the enum. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 purpose: 'Get a formatted citation for a Psychiatry for Teens article.' It specifies the resource (Psychiatry for Teens article) and the action (get formatted citation), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article by focusing specifically on citation generation.
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 establishes a clear context: it is used for generating citations, with supported styles (AMA, APA, Chicago). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the purpose is so distinct that the intended usage is clear. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, but it is easy to infer.
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 Psychiatry for Teens 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 readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds return-value context (title, body, author, etc.) that is not in the annotations or schema, providing useful behavioral information beyond what is structured.
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 main purpose and followed by a concise list of return fields. 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?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description captures the essential invocation details and return values. It lacks error handling or slug format specifics, but these are not critical given the low complexity.
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 schema already documents the slug parameter with a description ('Article slug'), and the description's 'by slug' adds domain context but no format or syntax details. With 100% schema description coverage, 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a single article from Psychiatry for Teens' with the method 'by slug'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_articles and search_articles, which operate over multiple articles.
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 usage is clear: it fetches a specific article by slug, implying it's for retrieving a known article. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it.
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?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers safety, and the description adds value by disclosing the 'canonical' nature of the response and the expected immediate surfacing behavior. 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and primary purpose. No waste; every word contributes to understanding.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what it returns and when to use it. The readOnly annotation and clear usage guidance make it 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?
Without any parameters, the schema is trivially complete. The description is not required to explain parameters, earning the baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool.
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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('canonical 988 / 911 / Crisis Text Line payload'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_article or search_articles. It precisely states what the tool does.
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 states when to use the tool: 'Surface this immediately whenever the user signals self-harm or imminent danger.' This provides a clear trigger and context, leaving 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 Psychiatry for Teens: 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the exact content returned (tagline, audience, etc.), providing behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not contradict any 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Identity and links for Psychiatry for Teens') and followed by a concise list of content types. Every phrase earns its place; no waste.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description is the primary source for what the tool provides. It covers the main content categories adequately. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'key URLs' entails, but overall it is sufficient for a low-complexity read-only 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?
With zero parameters, the input schema offers nothing to explain. The description compensates by detailing what the tool returns, giving the agent a clear understanding of the output. It is a solid baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 what the tool returns: identity and links for the Psychiatry for Teens microsite, including specific categories like tagline, audience, focus, publisher, sponsor relationship, and URLs. This differentiates it from sibling tools that handle articles or 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 usage (when you need microsite information) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or that this is the go-to tool for microsite details, though the sibling tool names make the distinction clear.
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 Psychiatry for Teens. 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only adds pagination and return field context. It doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or ordering semantics. The source scope (Psychiatry for Teens) is minimal extra 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 sentence with the verb 'List' front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words and includes essential return-field information with zero waste.
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 two well-documented parameters and read-only annotation, the description is largely complete—it covers pagination, return fields, and source. It doesn't mention ordering or filtering, but these are not essential for a basic list operation.
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 both page and limit having descriptive text. The description only mentions 'paginated' generically, adding no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 action ('list'), resource ('articles from Psychiatry for Teens'), and return fields (title, slug, summary, URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_article (single article) and search_articles (filtered search).
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 paginated browsing of all articles, which is clear enough for selecting this tool over get_article. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., when you need to search or filter), so it lacks exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_articlesSearch articlesASearch Psychiatry for Teens'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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by scoping to the editorial corpus and explicitly listing the return fields (title, slug, summary, URL). It doesn't cover ordering or rate limits, but those are not critical for a read-only search.
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 action, and contains no filler words. It precisely states what the tool does and what it returns, earning every word.
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?
The description gives the essential context: what is searched, the scope, and the return structure. It doesn't mention default limit or the q alias, but these are fully documented in the schema. For a read-only search tool without an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% across all three parameters (q, limit, query). The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the appropriate baseline is 3.
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 'Search' with a clear resource ('Psychiatry for Teens's editorial corpus') and states what the return fields are (title, slug, summary, URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_articles, which would list all articles without a query.
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 clearly implies this tool should be used when you need to find articles matching a query. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the 'when-not-to-use' guidance. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over listing tools.
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!
