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 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.
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, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by mentioning that output includes frequency counts, which is behavioral information not captured in annotations or 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's category ('Product data tool') followed by a clear verb and resource. Every part is essential, with no wasted 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?
Given no output schema, the description mentions frequency counts but does not detail the return format or ordering (e.g., by popularity). It is adequate for a simple list tool but could be more complete about the response structure.
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%; the parameter description already explains limit (max number, range, default). The tool description adds no new semantics about the parameter, so the baseline score of 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 verb 'list', the resource 'popular tags', the context 'Mana community creations', and the output includes 'frequency counts'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_public_share and search_community_apps which deal with different 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 provides clear context that the tool is for listing popular tags, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are distinct, so there is no confusion, but the description lacks usage exclusions or context for decision-making.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns pagination info and specific fields (titles, handles, creators, slugs), which is helpful. No contradictions with 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 sentences: first defines purpose and domain, second lists return fields. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence adds value.
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 has 6 parameters (all described) and no output schema, the description adequately mentions return fields (titles, handles, creators, slugs, pagination info). It could be slightly more detailed about pagination structure, but it is sufficient for agent understanding.
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 each parameter is already described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond showing it is a search tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the load.
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?
Description clearly states it is a product data tool for searching and browsing community creations, specifically iPhone apps. It specifies the resource (Mana community apps) and the action (search/browse). It distinguishes from sibling tools get_popular_tags (tags) and get_public_share (sharing) by focusing on app discovery.
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: use this tool to search and browse community apps. It implies usage for finding apps by query, tag, or category. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but siblings are different enough that confusion is unlikely.
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!