Need to make it a revenue generating mcp connection and a earning source and not provide for free.
Hardware-aware spatial kinematics solvers, block-wise asymmetric INT8 tensor quantisation runtimes, and high-entropy AST boundary fuzzing routers optimised for autonomous AI agent workflows.
Calculates rigid-body joint-space mass matrices M(q), Christoffel symbols, and analytical spatial geometric Jacobian derivatives using highly optimized, parallelized NumPy fallback matrix routines. Operates deterministically with zero side effects. Designed for real-time trajectory tracking, forward/inverse kinematic conversions, and sampling-based robotic path-planning validation frameworks (e.g., RRT*, PRM).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| joint_angles | Yes | An ordered coordinate array of float elements representing the target spatial joint motor positions measured strictly in metric SI units (radians for revolute joints, meters for prismatic joints). | |
| robot_definition | Yes | A highly structured, JSON-serialized configuration string detailing link spatial geometries, Denavit-Hartenberg (DH) matrix offsets, link lengths in meters, and mass/inertial tensor variables in kilograms. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool 'operates deterministically with zero side effects,' which is crucial for agent decision-making. This exceeds minimal requirements.
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 consists of two sentences, with the first sentence immediately stating the core functionality. There is no redundant information, and each sentence adds value. Efficient and well-structured.
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 complexity (kinematics, robotics) and the absence of an output schema, the description should ideally hint at the return structure or output content. It mentions the computed quantities but not how they are returned, leaving some information gaps for the agent.
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 with 100% description coverage. The description adds context about the parameters (e.g., 'mass matrices' implies usage of robot_definition) but does not significantly deepen understanding beyond the schema. A 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 that the tool calculates mass matrices, Christoffel symbols, and Jacobian derivatives, with specific use cases like real-time trajectory tracking and path planning. It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools (fuzz_boundaries, quantize_tensors) but does not explicitly differentiate them.
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 mentions applications like real-time tracking and path planning validation, implying suitable contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternative tools, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Performs abstract syntax tree (AST) constraint mapping and numerical array index fuzzing to extract boundary execution limits. Analyzes loop control variables and array offsets to guarantee absolute memory layout safety and preempt out-of-bounds pointer executions. This utility functions as a pure mathematical verification layout with zero storage engine side effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_code | Yes | The raw text string of programmatic mathematical syntax and array execution loop blocks to be parsed for boundary evaluation. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'zero storage engine side effects' and 'pure mathematical verification layout', which informs the agent that this tool is safe and non-destructive. With no annotations, this disclosure is valuable. However, it does not mention whether the tool is computationally expensive or if it modifies any state.
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, but the second sentence partially repeats the first. It could be more concise. For example, 'Guarantees memory safety by analyzing loop boundaries and array offsets' would be shorter while preserving meaning.
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 has no output schema, but the description does not explain what the tool returns. The agent is left guessing: are boundaries returned as a list, a report, or printed? Also, there is no mention of error conditions or expected input complexity. This gap 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?
The input schema's description of 'source_code' is generic, but the tool description adds meaning by specifying that it analyzes loop control variables and array offsets. This helps the agent understand what kind of code is expected. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the additional context warrants a 4.
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: performing AST constraint mapping and numerical array index fuzzing to extract boundary execution limits. The verb 'performs' and specific resources (AST, array indexes) make it unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings (compute_kinematics, quantize_tensors) by focusing on boundary analysis.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. For example, it could state that this tool is for static analysis of loop boundaries and should not be used for runtime checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Executes hardware-aware, piecewise asymmetric INT8 linear tensor quantization to compress high-density float32 weights arrays down to uniform integer sectors. Dynamically calculates block-wise scaling constants and zero-point alignment metrics to isolate distribution outliers. Clamps values strictly between the standard 0 and 255 byte limits to accelerate tensor processing array processing speeds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| block_size | No | The discrete integer segment capacity (default: 128) over which independent scaling bounds and shifts are calculated to preserve weight density precision. | |
| tensor_data | Yes | A flattened array of float32 values representing the raw weight distributions or dense mathematical matrices to undergo byte quantization. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the quantization process (block-wise scaling, clamping) but fails to mention behavioral traits like whether it modifies input, returns a new tensor, error conditions, or performance trade-offs. Annotations are absent, so the description should provide more 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?
Three sentences cover the tool's function, but could be more front-loaded. Some redundancy ('processing speeds') exists, but overall it is reasonably concise.
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 explanation of the algorithm is detailed, but critical elements are missing: no output description, no prerequisites, no error handling. With no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned.
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 adequate parameter descriptions. The main description adds general context but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, justifying baseline 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 clearly states that the tool performs tensor quantization ('Executes hardware-aware, piecewise asymmetric INT8 linear tensor quantization'), specifying the input type (float32) and output bounds (0-255). It is distinct from siblings which are unrelated.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when it is appropriate to use, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a completely different domain: kinematics, AST fuzzing, and tensor quantization. There is no overlap in purpose, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (compute_kinematics, fuzz_boundaries, quantize_tensors), providing predictability.
With only three tools, the server feels slightly undersized for a 'computational factory' scope, but each tool is a well-defined utility; the count is reasonable for a niche server.
The domain is unclear, but the tools cover three disjoint areas. For a broad 'factory' there are obvious gaps (e.g., no optimization, simulation, or data handling), but for a focused set of utilities, coverage is adequate.