ouroboros-tools
Server Details
Pay-per-call AI tools over x402: web research, summarization, structured extraction (USDC, Base).
- 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 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct function: structured extraction, summarization, and web research. There is no overlap in purpose, and the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern varies: 'extract_structured' follows verb_noun, 'summarize' is a single verb, and 'web_research' is a noun compound. This is mostly consistent but has minor deviations.
Three tools is a small but reasonable count for a utility server focused on text processing and web research. It feels slightly lean but not insufficient.
The set covers core operations: extraction, summarization, and research. Notable gaps exist, such as a tool for rewriting or classifying text, but the surface is functional for basic use.
Available Tools
3 toolsextract_structuredCInspect
Extract structured JSON from unstructured text, guided by your schema description. Paid: $0.01 per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| schema | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only mentions cost ($0.01 per call via x402). Other behaviors like idempotency, error handling, or output format are absent.
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?
Very concise at two sentences, no unnecessary words. However, it could sacrifice some brevity to include more essential 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?
Given no output schema and limited annotations, the description lacks completeness on expected output, error cases, and usage context for a 2-parameter extraction tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema parameter's format is not explained (e.g., JSON schema vs plain text), and the 'schema description' phrase is vague. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal 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 extracts structured JSON from unstructured text, guided by a schema description. It distinguishes from sibling tools like summarize and web_research.
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 like summarize or web_research. Missing context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
summarizeBInspect
Summarize any text (up to ~24k chars) with optional focus. Paid: $0.01 per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| focus | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a 24k character limit and a $0.01 cost, which are useful. However, it omits details like return format, error handling for oversize text, or whether the tool is safe/idempotent. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.
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: the first states the core action with constraints, the second adds pricing. No wasted words. The information is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.
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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main action and key constraints (length, cost). However, it lacks detail on the focus parameter's role and expected output. The agent gets enough to use the tool but not optimal guidance.
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 the description must add meaning. It mentions the optional 'focus' parameter but does not explain its purpose or expected values. The text parameter is implied but not defined. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema structure.
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 action: 'Summarize any text'. The verb 'summarize' and resource 'any text' are specific. Sibling tools 'extract_structured' and 'web_research' handle different tasks, so this tool is well-distinguished.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings. The only usage hint is the optional focus, but no when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
web_researchBInspect
Web research: searches the web and returns a concise cited brief answering your query. LLM-synthesized on independent hardware. Paid: $0.02 per call via x402 (payment in _meta['x402/payment']).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present. Description discloses LLM-synthesis, independent hardware, and cost. Does not cover latency, asynchronous behavior, or data handling.
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 fluff. 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?
No output schema, no annotations. Description leaves out return structure, error handling, and behavioral details beyond basic 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?
Schema coverage 0%. Description does not explain the 'query' parameter beyond its name. No format, constraints, or examples added.
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?
Clear verb ('searches') and resource ('web'). States output is a concise cited brief. Distinguishes from siblings by nature of search, but could be more explicit.
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 vs siblings (extract_structured, summarize). Mentions cost and payment, but lacks context on prerequisites or alternatives.
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!