verification-talent
Server Details
Verify Algerian digital certificates and find certified professionals for hiring in Algeria.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- 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 4.1/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: profile retrieval, institution listing, specialty listing, job matching, platform statistics, certified talent search, and certificate verification. Minimal overlap in functionality.
Six of seven tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, list_, match_, search_, verify_). The outlier 'platform_stats' uses a noun_noun pattern, which slightly breaks consistency.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of certificate verification and talent recruitment. Each tool is essential and neither too few nor too many.
The tool surface covers all core operations: certificate verification (verify_certificate), talent discovery (search_certified_talent, match_talent_to_job, get_talent_profile), resource listing (list_institutions, list_specialties), and overall stats (platform_stats). No obvious gaps for the intended use case.
Available Tools
7 toolsget_talent_profileARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get a certified person's public profile by username/slug: headline, bio, years of experience, verified certifications and CV link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Profile username/slug, e.g. "boukhalfa-idris". |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bio | No | |
| name | No | |
| found | No | |
| headline | No | |
| profile_url | No | |
| open_to_work | No | |
| experience_years | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare read-only and idempotent nature. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (headline, bio, years of experience, certifications, CV link), providing behavioral context beyond 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all necessary information without extraneous words. Highly efficient.
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 simple interface (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers key details. It could mention error handling for invalid usernames, but overall adequate for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description and example for the single 'username' parameter. The tool description adds no new semantics beyond confirming the lookup key, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get'), resource ('certified person's public profile'), and identifier ('by username/slug'), listing specific fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_certified_talent' which returns multiple profiles.
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 have a username and need a single profile. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context is clear given the simple singular purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_institutionsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List accredited training institutions on AlgeriaCertify and how many active certificates each has issued.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max institutions (1-50, default 20). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | |
| institutions | No | |
| directory_url | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about the data returned (certificate counts), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond 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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded verb and resource. 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 the tool is a simple list with one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough. No need to detail return values.
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 the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline score 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?
Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'accredited training institutions', and specifies what data is returned ('how many active certificates each has issued'). It is distinct from siblings like list_specialties and search_certified_talent.
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. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of sibling tools. The description only states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_specialtiesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List the certification programs / specialties available on AlgeriaCertify, with how many people are certified in each. Useful to discover what skills can be verified or recruited for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max programs to return (1-100, default 40). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | |
| programs | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds value by noting that certification counts are included, and it does not contradict 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?
Description is concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a brief usage note, 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 list tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, output content, and usage 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% for the single parameter, and the description does not add any additional semantics 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 lists certification programs/specialties with certification counts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_institutions and search_certified_talent.
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 usage context ('useful to discover what skills can be verified or recruited for') but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
match_talent_to_jobARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Recruitment matchmaker: given a job description or a list of required skills (plus optional specialty/wilaya), returns the best-matching certified professionals in Algeria, ranked by skill overlap, trust score and availability. Each result includes a match score, the matched terms, verified certifications and the public profile URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max candidates (1-25, default 8). | |
| wilaya | No | Optional wilaya: code, Arabic or English name. | |
| specialty | No | Optional specialty / job-title filter. | |
| description | Yes | The job description or required skills/keywords (free text, any language). | |
| open_to_work | No | Only candidates open to work. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | |
| results | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, making the tool's safety profile clear. The description adds value by detailing the return payload (match score, matched terms, certifications, URL) and ranking factors, going beyond structured metadata.
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 brief, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Two sentences cover purpose, inputs, and output characteristics efficiently.
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 richness of annotations and schema (100% coverage, output schema present), the description is largely complete. It could benefit from mentioning behavior for empty results or interaction between parameters, but overall it sufficiently enables correct tool invocation.
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 each parameter has a description. The description contextualizes parameters like 'specialty' and 'wilaya' as optional filters but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already 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 that the tool matches a job description or skills to certified professionals, ranking results by skill overlap, trust score, and availability. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_certified_talent' by emphasizing ranking and verified certifications.
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 finding best-matching candidates but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_certified_talent' or 'get_talent_profile'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
platform_statsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Trust statistics of the AlgeriaCertify portal: number of active verified certificates, public talents and accredited institutions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| site | No | |
| portal | No | |
| public_talents | No | |
| mcp_queries_served | No | |
| active_certificates | No | |
| accredited_institutions | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying the content of the statistics (certificates, talents, institutions), which is valuable 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 sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the key information ('Trust statistics'). 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 stats tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add param info; the baseline score is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'trust statistics' including counts of active verified certificates, public talents, and accredited institutions. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_talent_profile' which are focused on individual entities.
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 siblings. The context implies it is for overall platform metrics, but there is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_certified_talentARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Find certified professionals in Algeria for recruitment, filtered by keyword, specialty, wilaya and open-to-work status. Returns names, headlines, top certifications, wilaya and public profile URLs. Supports pagination via offset.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-25, default 10). | |
| query | No | Keyword: job, skill or course (e.g. "tourneur", "forklift", "excel"). | |
| offset | No | Skip N results for pagination (default 0). | |
| wilaya | No | Wilaya filter: code, Arabic or English name (e.g. "23", "Annaba", "عنابة"). | |
| specialty | No | Specialty / job title filter. | |
| open_to_work | No | Only people open to work. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | |
| results | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying return fields and pagination support, which are not in 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters, then output details and pagination. 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 6 parameters, all described in schema, plus an output schema and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context for usage. It covers all key aspects: what, filters, output, pagination.
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 good descriptions. The tool description summarizes the filter categories and adds context about output fields and pagination, but does not significantly extend parameter 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('certified professionals in Algeria'), and clearly lists filters and output fields. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_talent_profile' by focusing on search across a population.
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 states when to use the tool (recruitment) and lists available filters, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_certificateARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Verify an Algerian digital certificate by its code or token. Returns the holder, course, issuing institution, status (active/revoked/expired) and the official verification URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Certificate code or token, e.g. "AC-2026-EYP8U4" or "ACVP-XXXX-XXXX". |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| found | No | |
| token | No | |
| course | No | |
| holder | No | |
| issuer | No | |
| status | No | |
| is_valid | No | |
| issued_at | No | |
| verify_url | No | |
| certificate_code | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the return fields, including the verification URL, which provides additional behavioral context beyond 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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that cover purpose, input, and output without any fluff. Every sentence adds essential information, making it easy to scan.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the input, expected output fields, status labels, and the verification URL. No missing information is necessary for this use case.
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 100% coverage with a clear description and example for the 'code' parameter. The tool description does not add further parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying an Algerian digital certificate by code or token. It lists the returned fields (holder, course, issuing institution, status, verification URL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_certified_talent or get_talent_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 context on when to use the tool (given a certificate code/token) and includes an example format. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling tools are clearly different (e.g., searching lists vs. verifying a single certificate), making the usage context clear.
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!