China facts a server outside China cannot get: real mainland reachability, 调休 holidays, ID/phone val
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 4.1/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among Chinese calendar/astrology tools: huangli and pick_lucky_days both deal with auspiciousness, and bazi_chart/lunar_calendar/huangli share calendar concepts. Descriptions are detailed enough to tell them apart, so this is minor.
Tool names are inconsistent in style: bazi_chart and lunar_calendar are noun phrases, id_card_check and pinyin_convert are object-verb, pick_lucky_days is verb-object, huangli is a single transliterated word, and what_can_you_do is a full sentence. There is no common verb_noun pattern, making naming unpredictable.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for a China-related utility toolkit. Each tool covers a distinct facet—calendar/astrology, identity validation, network reachability, pinyin conversion, and a meta tool—without excessive overlap or padding.
Each domain is thoroughly covered: lunar/holiday/almanac/lucky-day tools cover the cultural calendar space; ID and phone validation are complete with relevant details; network reachability measures HTTP, latency, and DNS; pinyin conversion includes tones, first letters, and slugs. The what_can_you_do tool also helps agents discover capabilities. No obvious dead ends or missing core operations.
bazi_chart生辰八字排盘A八字排盘 from birth date and hour: four pillars (年月日时柱), five-element counts, 纳音, zodiac. Uses true solar-term boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datetime | Yes | Birth datetime YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral detail by noting that it uses true solar-term boundaries, which affects chart accuracy, and enumerates output elements. This is beyond the annotation-provided safety profile, making it transparent for expected 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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loads the main function, and packs relevant details (output components and the solar-term boundary method) without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, making it well-structured and 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?
Given the tool has one parameter, complete schema documentation, explicit annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: input, purpose, and distinctive calculation logic. It does not need to explain return values, as the output schema handles that. The only minor gap is timezone handling, but that is not essential for a straightforward birth datetime input.
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 fully documents the only required parameter (datetime) with format YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm, providing 100% coverage. The description simply refers to 'birth date and hour' without adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool computes a BaZi (Four Pillars) chart from birth date and hour, listing key output components (four pillars, five-element counts, 纳音, zodiac). This differentiates it from sibling tools like lunar_calendar or huangli, which serve different purposes. The verb '排盘' (chart calculation) is specific and resource-oriented.
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 the tool is for generating BaZi charts from birth datetime, giving clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of providing full when/not guidance. It still qualifies as clear context with no exclusions, meriting a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
china_reachabilityTest if a URL is reachable from mainland ChinaAFetch a URL from a real mainland-China network egress and report HTTP status, latency and China DNS resolution. Answers "is my site/API usable from China?" with a measurement instead of a guess — you cannot get this from a VPS abroad.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full URL to test, e.g. https://example.com |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: it performs a live fetch from a real China egress, reports specific metrics, and frames the result as a measurement rather than a guess. No contradictions with annotations. It does not mention rate limits or failure behavior, but annotations cover safety.
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 the action verb, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or 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?
The tool is simple (1 parameter, output schema provided). The description fully explains the tool's purpose, the measurement approach, and the key limitation of alternatives. Return values are already covered by the output schema, so no further detail is needed.
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 the 'url' parameter described as 'Full URL to test, e.g. https://example.com'. The description restates the URL-fetching concept but doesn't add new parameter-level detail or format constraints beyond the schema. 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 clearly states a specific action ('Fetch a URL from a real mainland-China network egress') and the resource/scope ('URL reachability from China'), with measurable outputs (HTTP status, latency, DNS resolution). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are unrelated to network testing.
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 clarifies when to use the tool: to answer 'is my site/API usable from China?' and explicitly notes that a VPS abroad cannot provide this measurement. While it doesn't name a specific alternative tool, it gives strong contextual guidance and an implicit exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cn_holiday中国法定节假日AIs a date a Chinese public holiday, weekend, or 调休 make-up workday? Plus the next holiday.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD, default today |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds specific behavioral detail: it evaluates three categories (public holiday, weekend, workday) and returns the next holiday. This provides useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover edge cases like historical date range.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that conveys the complete functionality without any wasted words. It is concise and immediately understandable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with a rich output schema and informative annotations, the description fully conveys what the tool does. There are no notable gaps in context for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 the only parameter `date` fully documented as YYYY-MM-DD with a default of today. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already carries the burden.
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 function: determining whether a date is a Chinese public holiday, weekend, or 调休 make-up workday, plus providing the next holiday. This specific scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like lunar_calendar (lunar dates) and huangli (almanac).
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 for holiday queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Given related sibling tools exist, explicit guidance on when to choose this tool would be beneficial, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
huangli今日黄历宜忌AChinese almanac for a date: 宜 (auspicious activities), 忌 (avoid), 冲煞, 彭祖百忌. date omitted = today.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD, default today |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the date defaults to today, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not detail edge cases such as invalid dates or timezone handling, but the additional context is sufficient.
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 core purpose (Chinese almanac for a date) and succinctly lists the key output categories. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or verbose phrasing.
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 optional parameter, and an output schema exists, so return fields need not be explained in the description. The description covers default behavior and primary outputs. Some context regarding relationship to sibling tools (e.g., lunar_calendar for lunar dates) could be useful, but the tool is self-contained enough for an agent to use correctly.
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 provides 100% coverage of the single 'date' parameter, describing it as YYYY-MM-DD with a default of today. The description repeats this default behavior, adding no further parameter-specific meaning. As schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a Chinese almanac for a given date, listing the specific output categories (宜, 忌, 冲煞, 彭祖百忌). This differentiates it from sibling tools like lunar_calendar (lunar date conversion) and pick_lucky_days (date selection), as it focuses on daily almanac information.
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 for checking auspicious and inauspicious activities for a date, and mentions the default behavior when date is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like pick_lucky_days or lunar_calendar, so guidance is 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.
id_card_checkid card checkAInspect中国大陆身份证号校验:check digit validity, birth date, age, gender, region code. id = 18-digit ID number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the validation checks performed but does not describe output format, behavior on invalid input, or whether it returns a detailed report or simple boolean.
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 sentence plus a note, both informative and free of fluff. Every part 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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return value details and error behavior. It is sufficient for a simple validation tool but leaves gaps for an agent expecting structured output.
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 is empty with additionalProperties true, so the description is the sole source of parameter information. It explicitly defines 'id' as an 18-digit ID number, providing the necessary semantics.
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 validates Chinese mainland ID card numbers, specifying checks for digit validity, birth date, age, gender, and region code. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bazi_chart or phone_info.
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 versus alternatives is provided, but the tool's unique purpose in the sibling list makes usage implied. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lunar_calendar公历转农历AChinese lunar calendar for any date: 农历、干支纪年、生肖、节气、节日、星座。date omitted = today.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD, default today |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the default date behavior and enumerating the types of information returned (lunar, sexagenary cycle, zodiac, solar terms, holidays, constellations), going beyond the 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Chinese lunar calendar for any date') and then enumerates the specific outputs in a list. Every part is informative and there is no unnecessary wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers the main function, default behavior, and output content, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers 100% of the parameter, stating 'YYYY-MM-DD, default today'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides a Chinese lunar calendar for any date, listing specific output types (农历, 干支纪年, 生肖, 节气, 节日, 星座). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on lunar conversion and calendar-related data, unlike bazi_chart or huangli which likely serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context that this tool is for lunar calendar information for any date, including a default behavior of 'date omitted = today'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident enough that an agent would know to select it for lunar calendar queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
phone_infophone infoAInspect中国大陆手机号识别:validity, carrier (移动/联通/电信/虚拟运营商), formatted forms. phone = 11-digit number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the input constraint (11-digit number) and output categories (validity, carrier, formatted forms), but does not mention error handling, authorization requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The description gives useful behavioral details but lacks comprehensive transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of one short sentence with a colon-separated list of outputs and an input specification. Every word carries meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core 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?
For a simple tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the input and output aspects, including validity, carrier, and formatted forms. It lacks error handling or edge-case details, but given the low complexity, the description is reasonably complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no properties, so the description compensates by specifying the 'phone' parameter as an 11-digit number. This is essential semantic information beyond the empty schema. The description could be more explicit about parameter name and type, but it clearly conveys the required input.
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 function: identifying mainland Chinese mobile numbers, with specific outputs (validity, carrier, formatted forms). The verb '识别' and resource '中国大陆手机号' make the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like bazi_chart or id_card_check.
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 for phone number identification by specifying input format and output details, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pick_lucky_days择吉日AFind auspicious days in a month for an event: 结婚/领证/搬家/开业/装修/出行/签约/订婚/安床/安葬 or any 黄历宜 term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event | Yes | Event keyword in Chinese, e.g. 搬家 | |
| month | No | YYYY-MM, default current month |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent safety. The description adds context about accepted event terms but does not disclose output format or dependency on the Chinese almanac beyond the '黄历宜' reference.
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, focused sentence with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary function and scoped by month.
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?
A simple tool with 2 params, good annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the purpose and parameter flexibility, though it does not mention behavior for invalid events or the default month (already in schema).
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 both parameters (100% coverage). The description enriches semantics by listing concrete examples and stating 'any 黄历宜 term' accepts broader input than the schema's generic 'Event keyword in Chinese'.
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 action ('Find'), target ('auspicious days'), and context ('in a month for an event'). The list of example events and 'any 黄历宜 term' broaden understanding while distinguishing it from generic calendar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides implied usage via specific event types but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'huangli' or state when not to use. 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.
pinyin_convertpinyin convertAInspectConvert Chinese text to pinyin: with or without tones, first letters only, or as a slug. text = Chinese text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output modes (with/without tones, first letters, slug) but does not specify the exact return format, input handling (e.g., mixed Chinese/non-Chinese), or edge cases. This is a moderate gap for a conversion tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core function first, then the output options, and finally the parameter definition. Every part earns its place with 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?
The tool is simple, but without an output schema or more detailed parameter info, the description leaves gaps: it doesn't specify how to request each output mode, what the return value looks like, or edge-case behavior. It is adequate for basic use but not fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero properties, so the description must compensate. It defines 'text = Chinese text', which is helpful, but the description references multiple output modes without specifying parameter names or values (e.g., a 'format' flag). This leaves the 'how' ambiguous, so it only partially compensates for the empty 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 converts Chinese text to pinyin, with specific output modes (tones, first letters, slug). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from all sibling tools, which are unrelated (e.g., bazi_chart, id_card_check).
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 context is clear: use this tool when you need pinyin conversion. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but among the sibling tools none compete for the same task, so the usage context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
what_can_you_doFind the right tool for a taskADescribe a task in plain language (any language) and get back exactly which tools on this server do it, with ready-to-run example calls — instead of reading the whole catalogue and guessing. Also returns multi-step recipes when a task needs several tools chained (invoices to a ledger, a bank statement reconciled, a messy CSV turned into a deliverable). Deterministic and free: it calls no model, costs nothing, and never runs out of quota. Call this FIRST when you are not sure what this server offers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | What you are trying to do, e.g. "reconcile a bank statement against my books" or "把一堆发票整理成能入账的表格" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover non-destructive, read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds valuable context: it is deterministic, calls no model, costs nothing, and never runs out of quota, plus clarifies it returns example calls and recipes. This exceeds the structured hints 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?
Four sentences pack purpose, features, behavioral guarantees, and usage guidance with no redundancy. Front-loaded with main action, then supporting details.
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 single-parameter meta-tool with output schema present, the description explains what it returns, when to use it, and behavioral guarantees. Nothing major 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 covers 100% of parameter info, with a clear description and examples for 'task'. Description adds no additional parameter semantics; baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the tool as a meta-tool that maps plain-language tasks to server tools, with ready-to-run examples and multi-step recipes. This sharply distinguishes it from sibling domain-specific tools like bazi_chart or phone_info.
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 instructs to call this FIRST when unsure of server offerings, and frames itself as an alternative to reading the whole catalogue and guessing. Provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate.
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!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.