The cloud for agents. Tools for AI agents to register, build, and deploy other agents. Zero human required.
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 3.2/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
Each tool targets a clear, distinct operation: entity CRUD, addon management, discovery, interaction, and registration. While chat, invoke, and webhook all involve communication, their descriptions clearly differentiate entity chat from public invocation and webhook payloads.
All tools share the 'subfeed_' prefix and use snake_case, with most following a verb_noun pattern (create_entity, delete_entity, list_addons). A few use bare verbs (chat, invoke, register) or noun-only (webhook), but the pattern is still recognizable and predictable.
15 tools is at the upper edge of the ideal range, but it matches the server's broad scope covering entities, addons, models, discovery, and user registration. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and none feel redundant.
The surface covers full entity lifecycle (create, get, update, delete, publish), addon management (enable, disable, list), entity discovery, and user registration. Minor gaps like an explicit unpublish or webhook management can be worked around via update_entity or standalone webhook sending.
subfeed_chatCInspectChat with your entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID | |
| message | Yes | Message to send | |
| sessionId | No | Session ID for conversation continuity |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether messages are stored), authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the response, making the tool's behavior opaque.
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 with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though it still conveys the essential action.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should explain more about expected behavior and return value. It also omits context about what an 'entity' is and how chat interaction works, leaving significant gaps.
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 provides complete descriptions for all parameters (id, message, sessionId), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, but no compensation is needed.
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 'chat' with a clear resource ('your entity'), which conveys the core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like subfeed_invoke or subfeed_get_entity, leaving some ambiguity about what 'chat' specifically entails.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_create_entityCInspectCreate a new AI entity on Subfeed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Entity name | |
| topP | No | ||
| model | No | Model ID from subfeed_list_models | |
| maxTokens | No | ||
| description | No | Public description | |
| temperature | No | ||
| systemPrompt | No | System prompt |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The one-line description only states that it creates an entity, but fails to mention side effects, idempotency, required permissions, error behaviors, or any other operational traits. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.
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 with zero waste. It immediately states the tool's purpose and is appropriately concise for such a simple action, even though more content might be desirable for completeness.
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?
Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no information about what fields are expected, what an AI entity is, what the response will look like, or how this tool fits into the broader Subfeed workflow. The schema fills some gaps, but overall the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's context.
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 description does not mention any parameters or their roles, and the schema covers only 57% of parameters (name, model, description, systemPrompt have descriptions, while topP, maxTokens, and temperature do not). The description adds no value beyond the schema, and a moderate coverage gap remains unaddressed.
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 (create) and the resource (AI entity) on Subfeed, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like update, delete, or list. However, it does not provide additional context about what an 'AI entity' specifically entails, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact scope.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as subfeed_update_entity or subfeed_publish_entity. There are no prerequisites, caveats, or context indicating the appropriate scenarios for creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_delete_entityCInspectDelete an entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete an entity,' which reveals the core destructive action but omits any details about irreversibility, consequences, permissions, or side effects.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no useful information beyond the tool name, making it insufficient.
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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description still lacks behavioral details or return value expectations. Without annotations, more context is needed, yet only the bare minimum is present.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter (id), so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.
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 'Delete an entity' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'subfeed_delete_entity'. It is clear but tautological, lacking any additional context or differentiation from sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools, so the description offers no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_disable_addonAInspectDisable an addon on an entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID | |
| addonType | Yes | Addon type to disable |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing consequences such as reversibility, permission requirements, or effects on existing entity data. This is insufficient for a state-changing operation.
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 no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it immediately understandable.
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 two-parameter tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits context about what happens after disabling (e.g., persistence, ability to re-enable, errors) and does not explain the tool's relationship to the broader subfeed addon system, which would aid 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?
Both parameters (id and addonType) are fully described in the schema with clear descriptions ('Entity ID' and 'Addon type to disable'). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline score 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 a specific verb 'Disable' and clearly identifies the resource 'an addon on an entity'. It is concise and distinct from sibling tool subfeed_enable_addon, which performs the opposite action.
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?
No explicit usage guidance is provided. The purpose is self-evident, but the description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like subfeed_enable_addon or any prerequisites, leaving usage implied rather than clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_discover_entitiesBInspectBrowse or search the public entity directory. No auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| search | No | Search by name or description |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no auth is required, which is useful, and 'browse or search' implies a read operation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, result format, or any other behavioral traits.
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 with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the core function and auth requirement.
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 presence of sibling tools like subfeed_list_entities, the description could be more complete by explaining the unique value of 'discover' vs 'list'. With no output schema, return values are not described, but this is a simple browse/search tool with optional parameters. Overall, it is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 descriptions for limit, offset, and search. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the search functionality via 'browse or search'. Baseline 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 states the tool browses or searches the public entity directory, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'list_entities', leaving some ambiguity about the difference between discovering and listing entities.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'No auth required' which is a security contextual note, but offers no exclusions or alternative tool references for cases like listing all entities vs searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_enable_addonBInspectEnable an addon on an entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID | |
| addonType | Yes | web_search | code_execution | image_gen | image_input | streaming | web_scrape | web_screenshot | web_extract |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the core action (enable) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens if the addon is already enabled. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the action and target.
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?
While the tool is simple, the description lacks any explanation of the enable operation's effects, return behavior, or relationship to other addon tools. The schema covers parameters but no output schema exists, so the description should provide more context.
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 descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'addonType' listing valid values). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Enable') and clearly identifies the resource ('an addon on an entity'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'subfeed_disable_addon' by the opposing action, and the scope (entity) is explicit.
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 context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'subfeed_disable_addon' or 'subfeed_list_addons'. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusionary conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_get_entityCInspectGet entity details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the basic action and offers no information about return format, error handling, permissions, or read-only guarantees. 'Get' weakly implies a safe read, but this is not explicit.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it adds little beyond the tool name, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't clarify the return shape, prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain an ID), or how this tool differs from list/discover variants. More context is needed for reliable invocation.
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% description coverage for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no extra semantic nuance about how the ID is used or what entity types are valid.
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 'Get entity details' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (entity), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_entities and discover_entities. However, 'details' is vague and doesn't specify the exact fields or shape returned.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_entities might be needed first to obtain an ID or that discover_entities provides search-like functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_invokeBInspectInvoke a public entity. No auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Public entity ID | |
| message | Yes | Message to send |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for revealing behavioral traits. It only states that no auth is required, but omits any information about side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens when the entity is invoked. This is insufficient for a tool that likely triggers an action.
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 primary purpose and includes the key note about auth. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.
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 tool with only two simple string parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention what the response looks like, and given the sibling subfeed_chat, it could benefit from clarifying when to use invoke rather than a chat-based interaction.
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 already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Public entity ID' and 'Message to send'), covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, 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 action ('Invoke') and the resource ('public entity'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like list/get/create. The addition of 'No auth required' provides a useful qualifier, though the exact meaning of 'invoke' is left somewhat ambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as subfeed_chat. The only contextual hint is 'public entity' and the note that no auth is required, but there is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_list_addonsAInspectList addons enabled on an entity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly implies a read operation via 'List,' but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it describe return format, error handling, or preconditions such as entity existence. The action is clear enough for a simple list tool, but richer detail would improve transparency.
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 of six words: 'List addons enabled on an entity.' It is front-loaded with the verb and omits any redundant information, making it highly efficient.
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 1-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what it lists and the target entity. However, it does not explicitly mention what the return value looks like (e.g., an array of addon IDs), nor how errors like invalid entity IDs are surfaced, which would make it fully self-contained.
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 covers the only parameter 'id' with the description 'Entity ID' (100% schema description coverage). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'an entity,' 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 'List addons enabled on an entity' uses a specific verb (List) and clearly identifies the resource (addons) and scope (an entity). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subfeed_enable_addon and subfeed_list_models by focusing solely on listing enabled addons.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description: use when you need to see which addons are enabled on an entity. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this over alternatives, nor any mention of related tools like subfeed_enable_addon or subfeed_disable_addon.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_list_entitiesCInspectList your entities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List your entities' and does not mention pagination behavior, return format, or any side effects. Listing is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated, and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.
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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and directly states the core action, 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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what an entity is, what fields are returned, or how pagination works, and it lacks usage differentiation from sibling tools. This makes the tool minimally viable but incomplete for contextual decision-making.
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 covers both parameters (limit and offset) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics, meeting the baseline.
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 'List your entities' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like create_entity, delete_entity, and get_entity. However, it lacks detail on scope (e.g., 'your' entities could mean owned vs accessible), so it is clear but not fully elaborated.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discover_entities or get_entity. The description does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_list_modelsAInspectList all available LLM models on Subfeed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, or any side effects, remaining purely declarative.
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 entire description is one sentence of six words, front-loading the action and object with no extraneous detail.
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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose. However, it could mention return format or any filtering limitations, so a slight deduction from perfect 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?
The tool has zero parameters; the schema is empty. The description adds context about the scope ('all available') but no parameter semantics are needed, so baseline 4 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 'List' and names the resource 'all available LLM models on Subfeed,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_addons and list_entities.
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 its use for listing LLM models but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, such as list_addons or list_entities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_publish_entityAInspectPublish entity to the public directory. Sets public: true and discoverable: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the exact flags modified (public, discoverable), which is useful. However, it does not mention reversibility, prerequisites, or potential side effects, leaving minor gaps.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose and the specific flags set. No wasted words; every phrase 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action and its effect. It could mention that the entity must already exist, but this is implied by the sibling create/publish relationships, so the description is sufficiently complete for typical invocation.
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 describes the single 'id' parameter as 'Entity ID', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies; the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
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 ('Publish entity to the public directory') and the specific outcome ('Sets public: true and discoverable: true'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/update/delete entity, focusing on publishing rather than general creation or modification.
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 when to use (when an entity should be made public) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. For a simple publish action, the context is clear enough, but it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_registerAInspectRegister on Subfeed. Omit email for autonomous agent token. Include email for full human account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Agent name | |
| No | Human email for full account. Omit for autonomous agent token. | ||
| description | No | What this agent does | |
| referred_by | No | Token of agent that referred you | |
| homepage_url | No | Agent origin URL (GitHub repo, website) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral detail: the outcome differs based on whether email is provided, resulting in either an autonomous agent token or a full human account. However, it does not mention side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what the response contains, which limits transparency for a mutation-like operation.
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 extremely concise, comprising just two sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose. Every word adds value, and it avoids unnecessary detail or duplication.
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 covers the essential operational difference (email omission vs. inclusion) and the tool's purpose, but it lacks information about the return value or response format. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left guessing what a successful registration returns. This is a meaningful gap, though the tool is simple and the purpose is clear.
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 provides 100% description coverage, with each parameter already explained, including the email behavior. The tool description adds minimal parameter insight beyond what the schema states, 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 action ('Register on Subfeed') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by the unique registration purpose. It also specifies two account types, adding specificity. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the verb and resource are unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to include or omit email: 'Omit email for autonomous agent token. Include email for full human account.' This effectively tells the agent which mode to use based on intent. It doesn't discuss when not to use the tool, but the sibling tools cover different operations, so the context is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_update_entityCInspectUpdate an entity's config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity ID | |
| name | No | ||
| topP | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| public | No | ||
| maxTokens | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| temperature | No | ||
| discoverable | No | ||
| systemPrompt | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'Update an entity's config' without revealing whether the operation is reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, whether it returns the updated entity, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 is appropriately front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words or fluff, earning a high score for brevity and structure.
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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is grossly insufficient. It does not address the behavior of the update operation, the meaning of optional fields, or the expected response. The agent would need to infer everything from the schema, which has minimal descriptions.
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 description coverage is only 10% (only 'id' has a description), and the tool description does not explain any of the other nine parameters. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the parameter names themselves suggest, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 'Update' and the resource 'entity's config', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_entity, delete_entity, and get_entity. The scope is well-defined, making it easy for an agent to know what this 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_entity or delete_entity. There is no mention of prerequisites like the entity needing to exist, nor any distinction between partial and full updates. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subfeed_webhookBInspectSend a webhook payload to a public entity. No auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Public entity ID | |
| payload | Yes | JSON payload to send |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions 'No auth required' and that it sends a webhook payload, but fails to disclose outcomes, side effects, reversibility, or any error/response behavior. This is a side-effecting operation with minimal transparency.
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 exceptionally concise, two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and adds the auth trait, making efficient use of 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 should explain what happens after sending, but it does not. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools or note any constraints, leaving the agent under-informed for a side-effecting webhook call.
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 id described as 'Public entity ID' and payload as 'JSON payload to send'. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not enhance understanding.
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 ('Send') and resource ('webhook payload to a public entity'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subfeed_chat or subfeed_create_entity. It is direct and unambiguous about the tool's primary function.
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 versus alternatives like subfeed_invoke or subfeed_publish_entity. It states only the action itself without any contextual cues or exclusions, leaving selection to inference.
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!