Earlywire
Server Details
Marketing, growth & SEO intelligence for AI assistants: 75+ practitioner sources, judged daily.
- 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 4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: coverage for scope, get_item for single item retrieval, search for full-text, topic_pulse for topic analysis, trending for rising topics, and whats_new for newest items. No ambiguity.
Tool names are all in snake_case and descriptive, but vary in part of speech: verb_noun (get_item), single verb (search), adjective (trending), and phrase (whats_new). Mostly consistent but not perfectly uniform.
6 tools is ideal for a curated news wire: coverage overview, single item retrieval, search, topic analysis, trending, and newest items. No unnecessary tools, yet comprehensive for the domain.
Covers core functions: discovery, search, individual retrieval, topic trends, and scope. Minor gap in filtering by source or author, but the domain is well-served overall.
Available Tools
6 toolscoverageAInspect
What this wire does and doesn't cover: per-source freshness and volume, category mix, last refresh. Call when unsure whether a question is answerable from here. The corpus is a curated marketing/growth niche (incl. the AI shifts affecting it) — not general news.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 describes the information returned (freshness, volume, category mix, last refresh) without mentioning side effects or permissions. Lacks explicit read-only statement but sufficient for a no-param 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, followed by usage guidance and scope definition. No wasted words, every sentence 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 parameters, the description completely explains what the tool returns and the context of the data source. No gaps remain for an agent to correctly invoke it.
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?
No parameters exist (schema is empty), baseline is 4. Description adds meaning by explaining what the tool outputs, which is the full value beyond 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 provides per-source freshness, volume, category mix, and last refresh, and distinguishes the scope as a curated marketing/growth niche. It contrasts with sibling tools by indicating when to call (when unsure if a question is answerable).
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 says 'Call when unsure whether a question is answerable from here', providing a clear usage context. It implies not to use for general news by defining the corpus as niche, thus guiding 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.
get_itemAInspect
Fetch one item by id: tldr, judge reason, and a short excerpt. This wire serves excerpts only — for full specifics (numbers, claims, recommendations) FETCH the source url with your web tools before synthesizing; most sources are public pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that it serves only excerpts and that most sources are public pages, implying safe fetching. It does not mention error handling or auth, but for a simple read operation it is sufficiently transparent.
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: first states purpose, second provides critical usage guidance. 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?
For a simple 1-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and its limitations. Lacks mention of possible errors or id validation, but 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?
The description only mentions 'by id' but does not explain the id format, constraints, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaningful detail beyond a basic hint.
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 fetches one item by id and provides specific content (tldr, judge reason, excerpt). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' and 'coverage' by focusing on single-item retrieval.
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 explicitly tells when to use (to get a quick excerpt) and when not (for full specifics like numbers/claims, use web tools instead). It provides clear alternatives and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchAInspect
Full-text search across titles, tldrs, topics, and excerpts of the corpus. Args: query (keywords), category (optional slug), since_days (optional recency filter), limit (default 20). Relevance-ranked. For specifics beyond the excerpt, FETCH the item's url — most are public pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| category | No | ||
| since_days | No |
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 discloses that search is across specific fields and results are relevance-ranked. However, it omits details like case sensitivity, fuzzy matching, or any performance/rate limits. Adequate 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: first states purpose, second lists parameters and a usage note. Every sentence is informative and no redundancy. Highly concise and front-loaded.
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?
While the description covers purpose and parameters, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., fields returned like excerpt, title, score). Given no output schema, more context on return structure would improve completeness.
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 compensates by explaining each parameter: 'query (keywords)', 'category (optional slug)', 'since_days (optional recency filter)', 'limit (default 20)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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?
Description clearly states the tool performs 'Full-text search across titles, tldrs, topics, and excerpts of the corpus.' This specifies the verb (search) and resource (corpus), and distinguishes from siblings like 'coverage' or 'trending'. It also notes relevance ranking.
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?
Description advises fetching the item's URL for specifics beyond the excerpt, implying when to complement this tool with others. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
topic_pulseAInspect
What the marketing/growth niche is saying about a topic: chatter volume, who covers it, score spread, top takes. Args: topic (free text, e.g. 'consent mode', 'AI Max'), since_days (default 30). Use to gauge discussion and disagreement, not just list items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | ||
| since_days | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes output types but does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. Since it's a read-like operation, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
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 paragraph with front-loaded purpose, then parameter details, then usage guidance. Every sentence is informative, no redundancy or fluff.
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 clearly enumerates return components (chatter volume, coverage, score spread, top takes). For a tool with 2 parameters, this is sufficiently 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 has 0% description coverage, but description compensates well: explains 'topic' as free text with examples ('consent mode', 'AI Max') and clarifies 'since_days' has a default of 30. This adds significant 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 the tool's purpose: analyzing what a niche says about a topic, including chatter volume, coverage, score spread, and top takes. Distinguishes from siblings like 'trending' or 'whats_new' by focusing on discussion and disagreement.
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 says 'Use to gauge discussion and disagreement, not just list items,' guiding the agent on appropriate use cases. Could be improved by mentioning when not to use or comparing to specific siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
trendingBInspect
Topics rising this window vs the previous one (mention velocity over judge topic tags). Args: window_days (default 7).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window_days | No |
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 discloses that it compares windows and uses mention velocity over judge topic tags, but doesn't detail any side effects, read-only nature, or performance implications.
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 purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates core functionality and parameter.
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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the mechanism (window comparison) and metric (mention velocity), making it sufficiently 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It only restates the parameter name and default, which are already in the schema, adding no extra semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool identifies topics rising in mention velocity comparing the current window to the previous one. This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like search or get_item.
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 vs alternatives. Only implicitly suggests use for trending topics, but no 'when not to' or comparisons to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
whats_newBInspect
Newest items on the wire — judged atoms from marketing/growth newsletters, vendor changelogs, and practitioner feeds. Args: category (one of 15 slugs, e.g. 'marketing-analytics', 'paid-ads', 'seo', 'ai-models'; omit for all), since_days (default 7), min_score (judge score floor 0-10, default 6), limit (default 20).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| min_score | No | ||
| since_days | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes filtering capabilities but omits any traits like idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.
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, information-dense sentence covering purpose and parameters. It is concise without waste, though a more structured format could improve readability.
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 explains all parameters but does not describe return format, error handling, or pagination. It is adequate but not complete for a tool with four parameters and complex filtering.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful explanations for all four parameters: category (enum noted), since_days (default 7), min_score (floor 0-10, default 6), limit (default 20). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 returns 'newest items on the wire' from specific sources, with a verb ('whats_new') and resource ('items'). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'trending' or 'coverage', leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, which limits an agent's ability to choose correctly.
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!