Read-only access to Namesake's baby name catalog: meaning, origin, pronunciation, popularity trend.
The last two health checks of this connector failed. If this server requires authentication, missing or expired test credentials may be the cause. A test profile lets Glama authenticate for health checks and discover tools; it is separate from your personal connections.
If you are the author, claim ownership, then add or update a test profile under Admin → Test Profile.
Scored across 7 tools
Each tool targets a distinct function: catalog search, full profile, phonetic neighbors, guide retrieval/listing, cultural classification, and feeds. The only minor overlap is get_cultural_classification, which returns a specific badge also present in get_name, but the description clarifies its narrow scope.
All tools use snake_case with clear get_/list_/search_ verb prefixes, forming a predictable pattern. Minor inconsistency: list_namesake_feeds includes the brand namespace while list_guides does not.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a read-only baby-name catalog and guide library. Each tool covers a distinct capability without obvious redundancy or padding.
The surface covers search, name details, similar names, cultural classification, guide listing/retrieval, and feeds—core read-only workflows for the domain. It lacks broader browse/filter options such as by origin, popularity, or style, but these are minor gaps agents can work around.
Returns the Phase 5 null-model cultural classification for a baby name (strongly cultural / culturally influenced / partial / fashion drift) — the same badge the name profile shows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name, case-insensitive (e.g. Rowan). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | |
| label | Yes | |
| years | Yes | |
| summary | Yes | |
| contract | Yes | |
| fracBeatP99 | Yes | |
| canonicalUrl | Yes | |
| yearsBeatP99 | Yes | |
| classification | Yes | |
| methodologyUrl | Yes | |
| percentBeatP99 | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a null-model classification tied to 'Phase 5', which is useful framing but jargon, and says nothing about error behavior or what happens for unclassifiable names.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then qualifies the return with the enumerated categories in a parenthetical. No 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?
An output schema exists, so return formatting needn't be explained, and the description still names the possible values. The only gap is what an agent should expect when a name has no classification or is unknown.
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 single 'name' parameter whose case-insensitivity is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or normalization detail beyond the structured field, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the Phase 5 null-model cultural classification for a baby name') and even enumerates the four possible classes, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_name or get_similar_names.
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 clause 'the same badge the name profile shows' implicitly links this to get_name and implies partial redundancy, but it never explicitly says when to call this instead of get_name or any other sibling. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns one guide's full content (title, intro, sections) — the same content the human page renders; every guide on this host is free to read. Known topics (8): how-to-choose-a-baby-name, baby-name-checklist, partner-disagreement, baby-name-popularity, pronunciation-test, gender-neutral-names, most-culturally-driven-names-last-decade, why-names-go-in-and-out-of-fashion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Guide topic slug (e.g. how-to-choose-a-baby-name). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| intro | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| topic | Yes | |
| contract | Yes | |
| sections | Yes | |
| canonicalUrl | Yes | |
| metaDescription | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: every guide is free to read (no auth/payment concerns) and the returned content exactly matches the human-facing page. 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?
The description is one tight sentence with a front-loaded return statement, followed by a compact list of known topics. Zero filler, every clause carries information.
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 a single required parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/non-destructive behavior, the description supplies everything needed for a correct call: return structure, access context, and the full set of valid topic values. Nothing critical is missing.
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 already covers the topic parameter fully with an example slug, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a complete list of 8 known topic slugs, going beyond the schema's single generic example and giving the agent concrete valid inputs. This is meaningful added value.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one guide's full content (title, intro, sections)'. The clarifying phrase 'the same content the human page renders' further pins down the exact scope, and the enumerated known topics distinguishes it from siblings like list_guides or get_name without ambiguity.
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 usage context is clear: call this when you need the full content of a single guide, identified by its topic slug. The list of known topics helps the agent recognize valid inputs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, such as using list_guides to discover additional topics, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns one baby name's public profile: meaning, origin, pronunciation, syllables, style/vibe tags, popularity rank + trend, and the Namesake score breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name, case-insensitive (e.g. Rowan). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | |
| origin | Yes | |
| meaning | Yes | |
| contract | Yes | |
| rank2023 | Yes | |
| rank2024 | Yes | |
| vibeTags | Yes | |
| styleTags | Yes | |
| syllables | Yes | |
| scoreTrend | Yes | |
| sexPctMale | Yes | |
| trendLabel | Yes | |
| velocity1yr | Yes | |
| canonicalUrl | Yes | |
| meaningShort | Yes | |
| scoreMeaning | Yes | |
| sexCharacter | Yes | |
| namesakeScore | Yes | |
| pronunciation | Yes | |
| currentlyTop100 | Yes | |
| currentlyTop500 | Yes | |
| originSecondary | Yes | |
| scoreUniqueness | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context by specifying the tool returns a public profile and listing exactly which data fields are included, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, normalization, or rate limits. This is adequate but not exceptional given the annotation coverage.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then efficiently lists the returned profile attributes. Every word adds value, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It names all major profile components, communicates that the profile is public, and is accompanied by read-only annotations. This is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
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%, so the input schema already fully documents the `name` parameter. The description adds a small amount of context by indicating the tool returns a profile for one name, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 names a specific verb (Returns), a specific resource (one baby name's public profile), and enumerates the profile components (meaning, origin, pronunciation, syllables, style/vibe tags, popularity, Namesake score). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_names, which find names rather than retrieve a single profile.
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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single name's profile, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer it over search_names or when not to use it. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternatives, so the usage context is present but only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns phonetic neighbors for a baby name from the research neighborhood graph — the same sounds-like list the /names/[slug] profile panel shows. Does not invent neighbors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name, case-insensitive (e.g. Rowan). | |
| limit | No | Max neighbors to return (default 8, max 20). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | |
| count | Yes | |
| contract | Yes | |
| neighbors | Yes | |
| canonicalUrl | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value: results are deterministic from a fixed graph and the tool 'does not invent neighbors,' telling the agent the output is bounded by stored data rather than generated. It stops short of describing the response shape, though an output schema exists.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and backed by the source and the 'does not invent' caveat. No filler.
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 full schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description only needs to convey source and determinism, which it does. It could be slightly more complete by noting ordering of neighbors or how ties/empty results behave, but nothing that would cause a misinvocation is missing.
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% (name is case-insensitive with an example; limit has default 8 and max 20), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about how 'name' is matched phonetically or how limit interacts with ranking, so baseline 3 is correct.
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?
States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('phonetic neighbors for a baby name') plus the backing source ('research neighborhood graph'), so the agent knows exactly what data it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search_names, which an agent might otherwise consider for name lookups.
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 'same sounds-like list the /names/[slug] profile panel shows' line implies when this tool is appropriate (a single-name neighborhood lookup rather than a text query), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative such as search_names. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List every published, free-to-read baby-naming guide on this host. Known topics (8): how-to-choose-a-baby-name, baby-name-checklist, partner-disagreement, baby-name-popularity, pronunciation-test, gender-neutral-names, most-culturally-driven-names-last-decade, why-names-go-in-and-out-of-fashion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | |
| guides | Yes | |
| contract | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by confirming the operation is exhaustive ('every'), restricting to free-to-read content, and listing the exact known topics. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and scope. The enumerated topic list is long but directly useful for an agent to understand expected results without requiring an API call. Every element serves a purpose.
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 zero parameters, a clear scope, an exhaustive topic list, and an output schema present, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The openWorldHint=false annotation reinforces that the list is complete, and the description aligns with that.
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, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage, and the description adds operational context instead of parameter details.
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 a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('baby-naming guide'), and an explicit scope ('every published, free-to-read ... on this host'). It also enumerates the known topics, which removes ambiguity about what the tool returns and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_guide.
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 clearly implies this is the tool to use when you want all published guides rather than a single one, and the scope 'every published, free-to-read' sets context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it, such as 'use get_guide for a single guide.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Namesake's free machine-readable feeds and their MCP/REST availability. OpenAPI is also published at https://www.namesake.baby/openapi.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it lists feeds and their availability, and points to the published OpenAPI spec, which is extra context beyond the annotations. No contradiction; it adds useful behavioral detail.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and the second provides a helpful pointer to external documentation. The information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, the type of information returned (feeds and availability), and a link to the OpenAPI spec for deeper details. An agent can call it confidently without additional 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.
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 a clear action ('List') and a specific resource ('Namesake's free machine-readable feeds') and adds the detail that it shows their MCP/REST availability. This is distinct from the sibling tools (get_guide, get_name, list_guides, search_names) which are about names and guides, not feeds.
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 it: whenever you need to discover available feeds and how to access them (MCP/REST). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is self-evident and no sibling overlaps. It is clear enough without explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the baby name catalog by prefix/substring. Returns name, origin, short meaning, 2024 SSA popularity rank, Namesake score, and trend label, ordered by popularity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows to return (default 10, max 50). | |
| query | Yes | Name prefix/substring, at least 2 characters (e.g. "Row"). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | |
| query | Yes | |
| results | Yes | |
| contract | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses what the response contains: name, origin, short meaning, 2024 SSA popularity rank, Namesake score, trend label, and that results are ordered by popularity. This adds meaningful behavioral context about output content and ordering.
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, front-loaded with the operation, and every clause adds value: search method, returned fields, and ordering. 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?
For a simple read-only search tool with two fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the search method, return fields, and ordering. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit sibling differentiation or when-not-to-use guidance, but this is minor given the tool's low complexity.
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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already fully described. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a clear verb ('Search'), a resource ('the baby name catalog'), and the method ('by prefix/substring'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_name and list_guides through its search-oriented operation, but it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast with exact-name lookup.
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 the tool by specifying 'prefix/substring' search, so an agent can infer it is for partial-name lookups. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when not to use it, such as preferring get_name for exact names, and no alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_cultural_classificationget_similar_namesget_membership_offerget_membership_offerget_guideget_namelist_guideslist_namesake_feedssearch_namesUS baby name popularity data from SSA records (1880-2025): search, trends, geography, culture.
Read-only tools over an independently vetted catalog of non-toxic home and baby products.
Read-only U.S. lab-test catalog, collection-site search, and reference-range context.
Read-only access to The Family Almanac's parenting-focused book library, grounded guide metadata...
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
