Read-only MCP tools for Mana public creations, tags, creator profiles, and share pages.
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 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_popular_tags lists tags, get_public_share fetches a specific profile or creation, and search_community_apps searches for apps. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_popular_tags, get_public_share, search_community_apps). Perfectly predictable.
With 3 tools, the set is well-scoped for a read-only public API, covering browsing tags, fetching specific items, and searching. Each tool serves a necessary function.
Covers key read operations: listing tags, fetching by identifier, and search. Minor gap: no direct listing of all creators or creations by tag, but search can compensate.
get_popular_tagsGet popular tagsAProduct 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). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the output includes frequency counts, which is helpful, but does not disclose other behaviors like ordering or pagination. No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence with clear structure, 'Product data tool: list...' – every word earns its place. No fluff.
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 one-parameter list tool with strong annotations and schema coverage, the description is adequate. It conveys the returned data (frequency counts) and the domain, though it doesn't explicitly state ordering or why to choose this vs siblings.
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 sole parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema, including range and default. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the schema carries the burden.
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 'list the popular tags used to categorise Mana community creations, with frequency counts' – a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_public_share and search_community_apps, which target different data.
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 popular tags but does not explicitly discuss when to use this over get_public_share or search_community_apps. 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.
search_community_appsSearch community appsAProduct 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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable return information (app titles, handles, creators, slugs, pagination info) and labels it a 'Product data tool,' which reinforces the read-only nature without contradicting 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, focused sentence plus a brief return-value sentence. It is front-loaded with purpose ('Product data tool') and contains no fluff 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 a well-covered schema and clear purpose, the description is sufficient for a search tool. It lacks pagination behavior details, but the schema documents offset and limit, so the overall context is complete enough.
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% for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.
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 specific verbs 'search and browse' and a specific resource ('Mana community's published iPhone creations'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_popular_tags and get_public_share. It also states what it returns, making the 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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching/browsing community apps) without mentioning exclusions. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tool names and the 'Product data tool' label.
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!