Mana Public
Server Details
Read-only MCP tools for Mana public creations, tags, creator profiles, and share pages.
- 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 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: tags, fetching a specific share, and searching apps. No overlap or ambiguity.
Two tools use 'get_' prefix and one uses 'search_', but all follow a verb_noun pattern. The inconsistency in verb choice is minor.
With only 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for accessing public data about apps and creators. Not excessive, but slightly narrow.
Core read operations are covered: tags, specific fetches, and search. Minor gaps exist, like listing all apps without search or getting tag details per item.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_popular_tagsGet popular tagsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Product data tool: list the popular tags used to categorise Mana community creations, with frequency counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of popular tags to return (1-100, default 30). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that results include frequency counts, which goes beyond the schema. 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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output. No unnecessary 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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the output (tags with frequency counts) and purpose. However, it lacks usage guidelines which slightly reduces completeness.
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 a detailed description for the 'limit' parameter (max 100, min 1, default 30). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'popular tags' with added context on usage in Mana community and inclusion of frequency counts. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are unrelated (get_public_share and search_community_apps).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or limitations. It simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_community_appsSearch community appsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Product data tool: search and browse the Mana community's published iPhone creations (games, tools, utilities created by users). Returns app titles, handles, creators, slugs, and pagination info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by tag. | |
| sort | No | Ordering of results. Defaults to trending. | |
| limit | No | Number of apps to return (1-48, default 24). | |
| query | No | Free-text search across app titles and descriptions. | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset (default 0). | |
| category | No | Filter by category slug. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the return fields, offering only modest extra context over the 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and return data. No wasted words 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?
Given the comprehensive schema descriptions (100% coverage) and annotations, the description completes the picture by specifying return fields and the nature of the tool. It is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.
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 description does not need to compensate. It adds minimal parameter nuance beyond stating return fields, meeting the baseline for well-described 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 purpose: 'search and browse the Mana community's published iPhone creations.' It specifies the verb (search/browse) and resource (community apps), and differentiates from siblings like get_popular_tags and get_public_share.
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 as a data retrieval tool for community apps, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. It is clear but lacks exclusionary context.
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!