brands
Server Details
Search brands and find authorized retailers on authorized.by
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_brand and get_retailer retrieve single entities; get_brands and get_retailers search/list; get_brand_retailers and get_retailer_brands handle cross-entity relationships. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix with snake_case and singular/plural nouns matching the return type (e.g., get_brand vs get_brands). Even compound names like get_brand_retailers are uniform.
With 6 tools covering brands, retailers, and their relationships, the set is well-scoped for a lookup service. Neither too sparse nor excessive for the domain.
The tool surface provides comprehensive read operations (single entity, list/search, and relationship queries) but lacks any write capabilities. For a purely informational API this is acceptable, but a minor gap if update functionality is expected.
Available Tools
6 toolsget_brandBInspect
Get the full profile for a specific brand: categories, website, headquarters country and description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_alias | Yes | Brand numeric ID or alias, e.g. 'deuter' or '16709'. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, error behavior, or potential limits. Only implies retrieval but lacks explicit safety info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient and clear.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Description includes output fields, but lacks error handling info, authentication context, or differentiation from siblings. Adequate but not fully complete.
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% and parameter description is clear. Tool description adds output field details but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what schema provides. 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?
Description clearly states getting the full profile for a specific brand and lists included fields (categories, website, headquarters country, description). Distinguishes from sibling 'get_brands' which returns a list, and 'get_brand_retailers' which focuses on retailers.
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 like 'get_brands' or 'get_brand_retailers'. Lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_brand_retailersAInspect
Get all retailers authorized by a brand, sorted by subscription plan (PREMIUM → START → FREE) then by brand-connection count descending. Each retailer includes seal_implemented (whether the authorized.by seal is live on their shop).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_alias | Yes | Brand numeric ID or alias. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the sort order and a field (seal_implemented) but does not mention error handling, rate limits, authentication, or response format. Some behavioral detail is added but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by sorting and field details. Every sentence is necessary and no redundant 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?
The tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides purpose and sorting but lacks details on response format, pagination, error states, or limits. It covers the basics but is not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter id_or_alias beyond what the schema provides. No extra context or examples are given.
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 gets all retailers authorized by a brand, specifies the sort order (by subscription plan then brand-connection count), and mentions the seal_implemented field. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_brand, get_brands, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need retailers for a specific brand. While it doesn't explicitly compare with siblings, the context makes it clear. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned, but the intent is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_brandsAInspect
Search authorized brands and manufacturers on authorized.by. Returns brand names, slugs, logos and authorized-retailer counts. Omit 'search' to retrieve the full index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Zero-based page number (default 0). | |
| size | No | Page size (default 500). | |
| search | No | Filter by brand name or alias. Optional. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool is a search/retrieve operation with no side effects implied. Could be more explicit about being read-only, but adequately describes behavior.
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 efficient sentences. First sentence states purpose and return data; second gives usage hint. No unnecessary 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 tool with no required parameters, optional pagination, and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: functionality, return fields, and search behavior. Could mention pagination limit (default 500) but schema already does.
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 provides full descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the effect of omitting 'search' (full index) and listing return fields, which complements the schema.
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 searches for authorized brands and manufacturers, and specifies the return fields (brand names, slugs, logos, authorized-retailer counts). This differentiates it from siblings like 'get_brand' (singular) and 'get_brand_retailers'.
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?
Provides clear guidance: omit 'search' to retrieve the full index. However, does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_retailerAInspect
Get the full profile for a specific retailer: address, contact details, opening hours, categories, subscription plan, TÜV certification, customer rating and seal_implemented (whether the authorized.by seal is live on their shop).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_alias | Yes | Retailer numeric ID or alias. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., if retailer not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description only describes the output fields.
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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and lists key output fields, with no superfluous 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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description could be more complete by mentioning error cases, default behavior, or how to handle missing data. Given the context, it meets minimum adequacy.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id_or_alias'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema beyond listing output fields, which is not directly about 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 clearly states 'Get the full profile for a specific retailer' and lists the specific fields (address, contact details, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_retailers or get_brand.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a single retailer's full profile is needed, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_retailer_brands or get_retailers, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_retailer_brandsAInspect
Get all brands a retailer is authorized to sell, sorted by brand name. Each entry includes the partnership_date (when the retailer became authorized for that brand).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id_or_alias | Yes | Retailer numeric ID or alias. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses sorting and the inclusion of partnership_date, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or limits. It provides some behavioral context but is not comprehensive.
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, well-structured sentence that starts with the action and includes key details without any extraneous 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?
Despite no output schema, the description clarifies the sorted order and included field (partnership_date), providing enough context for a simple list retrieval tool. Minor missing details like possible empty results or limits.
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 describes 'id_or_alias' as 'Retailer numeric ID or alias' with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Get all brands a retailer is authorized to sell, sorted by brand name', which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_brand' or 'get_retailer' by focusing on the retailer-brands relationship.
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 retrieving brands for a given retailer, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_brand_retailers' or provide when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_retailersAInspect
Search authorized retailers (shops) on authorized.by. Returns retailer names, slugs, shop URLs, logos, authorized-brand counts and seal_implemented (whether the authorized.by seal is live on their shop). Omit 'search' to retrieve the full index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Zero-based page number (default 0). | |
| size | No | Page size (default 500). | |
| search | No | Filter by retailer company name or alias. Optional. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lists return fields but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or disclose pagination behavior beyond defaults. Implied by context but could be more 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?
Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and return fields. Every sentence provides essential 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?
No output schema, but description lists return fields. Covers pagination parameters and search behavior. Missing explicit mention of rate limits or read-only nature, but sufficient for a list/search tool given sibling 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 each parameter described. The description adds context for 'search' (filter by name or alias) and explains behavior without search. This adds value beyond the schema.
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 searches authorized retailers and lists the return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_retailer (singular) and get_brand_retailers by its scope (list/search vs specific).
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?
Provides guidance on omitting 'search' for full index, but lacks explicit comparison with alternative tools like get_retailer for a single retailer or get_brand_retailers for brand-specific retailers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!