Read-only catalog of the @blueprint-modular/core design system (104 components). Four tools — list/search/get components and suggest compositions. Public, no auth, Streamable HTTP.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: getting details of a specific component, listing all components, searching by keyword, and suggesting compositions based on intent. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_component, list_components, search_components, suggest_composition.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a component catalog: list, search, get detail, and suggest composition. Neither too few nor too many.
The tool set covers the main use cases for a read-only design system catalog: browsing, searching, retrieving details, and getting composition suggestions. No obvious gaps.
Retourne le détail complet d'un composant : description, props/types, exemple d'usage, composants associés/parents et couche sémantique (rôle, frame Ω, type d'indicateur, directionnalité, guidance agent — valeurs proposées, ontologie curée par l'humain). À UTILISER après list/search pour obtenir la signature exacte ET le sens du composant avant de générer du code. Le nom accepte 'bpm.metric' ou 'metric'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nom du composant (ex. 'bpm.metric' ou 'metric'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the rich return data (description, props, examples, semantic layer) and acceptable parameter formats, going beyond what annotations provide.
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 paragraph that contains all necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet points for readability, but it remains 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 absence of output schema, the description compensates by listing the types of information returned (description, props, examples, semantic layer). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's output, though it omits potential error handling.
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 the description adds specific guidance on acceptable parameter values (e.g., 'bpm.metric' or 'metric'), which is not in the schema. This clarifies input format beyond what the schema definition offers.
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 verb ('retourne') and resource ('détail complet d'un composant'), listing specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it is to be used after 'list/search' to get full detail.
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 when to use: after 'list/search' and before generating code. This provides clear context and differentiates from sibling tools like list_components and search_components.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Liste les composants du design system Blueprint Modular (nom + description en une ligne). À UTILISER pour parcourir le catalogue ou découvrir ce qui existe dans une catégorie donnée. Résultat paginé par curseur (réutiliser 'nextCursor' pour la page suivante). Catégories : Affichage de données, Feedback, Graphiques, IA & Spécialisés, Identification & traçabilité, Interaction, Mise en page, Média, Navigation, Utilitaires.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Curseur de pagination renvoyé par un appel précédent (nextCursor). Optionnel. | |
| category | No | Filtre par catégorie exacte ou partielle (ex. 'Graphiques'). Optionnel. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds pagination behavior (cursor-based, nextCursor) and lists categories, providing useful 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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and usage, with no extraneous information. Bold key terms enhance 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?
The description fully covers the tool's purpose, pagination, categories, and return value (name+description). No critical gaps given the tool's simplicity and optional parameters.
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 both parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal additional semantics beyond referencing cursor and category, but it reinforces pagination and category filtering context.
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 states it lists components of the Blueprint Modular design system with name and description, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_component (single item) and search_components (search).
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 'À UTILISER pour parcourir le catalogue ou découvrir ce qui existe dans une catégorie donnée', providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but sibling tool names imply alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recherche les composants pertinents pour une requête en texte libre (match sur nom, description, catégorie et tags), triés par pertinence. À UTILISER quand on cherche un composant par fonction ou mot-clé (ex. 'tableau triable', 'graphique', 'upload fichier'). Résultat paginé par curseur.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Termes de recherche en langage naturel. | |
| cursor | No | Curseur de pagination renvoyé par un appel précédent (nextCursor). Optionnel. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying sorting by relevance and cursor-based pagination. It does not contradict annotations. It could mention other traits like no side effects, but given annotation coverage, this 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?
Two concise sentences. The first sentence defines the action and scope, the second provides usage guidance and pagination detail. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with key 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?
With 2 parameters, no output schema, and existing sibling tools, the description covers the essential behavior (search, relevance, pagination). However, it does not describe the return format or fields of each component in the results. While paginated by cursor is mentioned, an agent might need to know what fields are returned to use the result 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains cursor is for pagination and query is natural language terms. It also mentions sorting by relevance, which is not in the schema. Baseline 3 is increased due to these additions.
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 specifies the tool's verb ('Recherche'), resource ('composants'), and scope (free text on name, description, category, tags, sorted by relevance). Examples like 'tableau triable', 'graphique' provide concrete usage. It effectively distinguishes from siblings: get_component (single), list_components (list all), suggest_composition (composition).
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 states when to use this tool: 'À UTILISER quand on cherche un composant par fonction ou mot-clé'. It provides context and a clear use case. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the presence of sibling tools (get_component, list_components) implies alternatives, though not directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Suggère une liste de composants Blueprint Modular répondant à un besoin décrit en langage naturel, en raisonnant sur la couche sémantique (rôle, frame Ω, guidance) : chaque suggestion explicite son sens (meaning) et ses associations sémantiques (pairWith). À UTILISER pour partir d'une intention d'écran (ex. 'un dashboard avec des métriques et un graphique') et obtenir les briques pertinentes. Réponse bornée.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | Description du besoin / de l'écran à construire. | |
| limit | No | Nombre max de suggestions (défaut 8 ; plafonné à 12). Optionnel. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. Description adds value by explaining the reasoning on the semantic layer and that each suggestion includes meaning and pairWith. 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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. 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?
No output schema exists, so description should cover return structure. It mentions meaning and pairWith but lacks details on limit behavior and default. Adequate but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, satisfying the baseline.
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 verb 'suggère' and resource 'liste de composants Blueprint Modular', and distinguishes from sibling tools (get, list, search) by focusing on natural language need and semantic reasoning.
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 'À UTILISER pour partir d'une intention d'écran', providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_componentlist_componentssearch_componentssuggest_compositionClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity – fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge – works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge – works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
