Bilingual (EN+ZH) education data: 299 universities, 234 intl schools, degree-ROI, sourced answers.
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 3.8/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: answering questions, comparing universities, calculating ROI, fetching details, getting profiles, listing universities, matching schools, and searching. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern, making them predictable. The only minor deviation is 'fetch', which is a single verb, but it's still clear and common for such operations.
8 tools is ideal for an education data server, covering core operations (search, list, profile, compare, ROI, etc.) without being overwhelming or insufficient.
The tool set covers main user needs: answering questions, searching and listing universities/schools, getting profiles and comparisons, and ROI calculations. Missing features like school comparison or data updates, but overall solid for a read-only knowledge base.
answer_education_questionAnswer an education questionASearch BrightKey's cited answers to common international-education questions (curriculum, schools, universities, visas, process). Returns the best-match sourced answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Response language; defaults to en. | |
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). Adds context that it searches 'BrightKey's cited answers' and returns best-match, but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide. No contradiction.
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 wasted words. Purpose and result are front-loaded. 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?
Given simple tool with one required param and no output schema, description covers purpose and result well. However, lacks details on answer format or citation style, which could be useful. Annotations and schema are present, so overall adequate.
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 50% (lang param described, query not). Description does not add meaning for parameters; does not clarify query format or lang options. Fails to compensate for the undocumented query 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?
Clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'BrightKey's cited answers', with specific domain (international-education questions). Distinguishes from sibling tools like generic 'search' or 'fetch' by specifying it returns sourced answers.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Only implies use for international-education questions. Does not mention when not to use or compare with siblings like 'fetch' or 'search'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compare_universitiesCompare universitiesACompare 2 universities on BrightKey's 6 dimensions. Returns per-dimension tier deltas + a sourced tier-delta paragraph (tiers, not a single rank).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes | ||
| lang | No | Response language; defaults to en. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which matches the description. The description adds no further behavioral traits beyond the output format, so it meets the baseline without adding substantial context.
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 front-loads the action and output. It is concise and efficient, though it could be slightly rephrased for clarity without adding length.
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 adequately describes the return format (per-dimension tier deltas and a paragraph). It covers what the tool does and what it returns, but misses minor details like how to interpret 'tiers'.
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 only 33% (lang has description, but a and b are undocumented). The description adds meaning by specifying '2 universities' and the output, but it doesn't clarify what a and b represent (e.g., university IDs or names).
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 it compares two universities on specific dimensions (BrightKey's 6 dimensions). The verb 'compare' and resource 'universities' are precise, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'match_schools' or 'get_university_profile' by focusing on pairwise comparison with detailed output.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage for detailed comparison but lacks guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
degree_roiDegree ROIA5-year-after-graduation net ROI + break-even year for a degree. Pass a preset country slug (e.g. germany, uk-oxbridge, us-private) or 'all' for the ranked list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Response language; defaults to en. | |
| country | Yes | ROI destination slug, or 'all' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value by specifying the output content (net ROI and break-even year), which is beyond the annotation's safety profile.
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 with no wasted words. First sentence gives purpose, second sentence provides parameter guidance. Ideal conciseness and front-loading.
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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to call it, and provides necessary examples. No missing 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% but parameter descriptions are generic. The description enriches them by explaining 'preset country slug' with examples and clarifying 'all' returns a ranked list. This significantly adds meaning 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?
Clearly states it provides '5-year-after-graduation net ROI + break-even year for a degree.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_universities or get_university_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?
Explicitly tells the user to pass a preset country slug or 'all', providing concrete examples. It implies when to use (when ROI data is needed) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetchFetch a BrightKey document by idAFetch full content for an id returned by search (uni:, school:/, answer:).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| lang | No | Response language; defaults to en. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. Description adds ID format details, which are not behavioral. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, highly concise, front-loaded with the verb 'fetch' and resource 'full content'. 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?
With readOnlyHint and clear purpose, the description covers usage context. However, it lacks detail on the exact return structure (full content), which could be clarified further.
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 50% (lang described in schema, id not). Description adds meaning for 'id' parameter by specifying the expected format, compensating for schema gap. Lang parameter is well-described in 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?
Describes fetching full content by ID from search, with explicit ID formats (uni:<slug>, school:<city>/<slug>, answer:<slug>). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search or list_universities.
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?
Explicitly states the tool is for IDs returned by search, providing clear context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_university_profileGet university profileAFull BrightKey profile for one university by slug: tier ratings + why, verdict, strengths/weaknesses, cost estimate, admissions tips. Bilingual.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Response language; defaults to en. | |
| slug | Yes | e.g. harvard-university, eth-zurich |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Full profile' adds minimal safety context. The description does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or auth requirements, but the existing annotation covers the safety profile adequately. No contradiction.
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 concise (two sentences, ~20 words) and front-loaded with the core action and key contents. No unnecessary words 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?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values by listing profile components (tier ratings, verdict, etc.) and mentions bilingual support. It covers the essential expected output for a profile 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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (slug and lang) well-described in the schema. The description adds 'Bilingual' which ties to lang, but does not provide significant extra meaning beyond the schema's enum and description.
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 retrieves a 'Full BrightKey profile for one university by slug' and lists specific contents (tier ratings, verdict, strengths/weaknesses, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like list_universities (listing) and compare_universities (comparison) by focusing on a single university's detailed 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (retrieve detailed profile for a specific university) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the sibling tool list and the specific contents make the usage scenario clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_universitiesList universitiesAList BrightKey-profiled universities with optional filters. Returns slug, name, country, city, 6-dimension S/A/B/C/D tiers, and verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| country | No | ||
| minTier | No | ||
| acceptsIB | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains the return fields and filter capability, which is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (no contradiction). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or default ordering, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 action and key details. No redundant or unnecessary 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 description covers the purpose and return fields, but lacks parameter descriptions and pagination details. For a simple list tool with 4 optional parameters, it is moderately complete but has 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining individual parameters. It only says 'with optional filters' without detailing what each parameter (limit, country, minTier, acceptsIB) does.
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 it lists BrightKey-profiled universities with optional filters, and specifies the return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_university_profile (single university) or compare_universities (comparison).
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 through the description ('list with optional filters'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
match_schoolsMatch international schoolsAList BrightKey-profiled international schools, filtered by city and/or curriculum (e.g. IB, A-Levels, AP). Returns name, curricula, fees, inspection rating, tiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | e.g. singapore, tokyo, dubai | |
| limit | No | ||
| curriculum | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (name, curricula, fees, etc.) and the source (BrightKey-profiled). No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and filtering options. 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?
Given 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. It could mention default behavior when no filters are applied, but overall sufficient for the tool's 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 coverage is only 33% (only city has a description). The description mentions filtering by city and/or curriculum but does not explain the format or allowed values for curriculum, nor the limit parameter. Incomplete compensation.
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 lists BrightKey-profiled international schools with filtering by city and/or curriculum, and specifies the return fields (name, curricula, fees, inspection rating, tiers). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_universities.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_universities or answer_education_question. It only describes what it does, not when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch BrightKeyBSearch across universities, schools, and answers. Returns {id, title, url} results; pass an id to fetch().
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only. Description adds return format and chaining hint, but no additional behavioral traits like pagination or 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action. Each sentence adds distinct 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?
Minimal but covers key aspects: scope, return fields, chaining. Lacks details on result multiplicity or pagination, which could be important.
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 has 0% description coverage for 'query' parameter. Description only vaguely implies it is a search term, no details on format or constraints.
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 it searches across universities, schools, and answers, and specifies return fields. Clear purpose but could be more specific about scope given siblings.
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 guidance on when to use search vs siblings like list_universities or compare. Implies a two-step process with fetch but no when-to-use context.
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!