Universal AI-driven comparison engine: ask in natural language, get a real-time comparison built from real, sourced data. Provably neutral (never pay-to-rank), traceable sources, multi-language and multi-country. Built for both humans and AI agents (MCP, JSON, Markdown).
Fetch one full structured comparison (items with scores, sub-scores, per-criterion values, badges, sources, sourced/estimate flags, freshness). Neutral ranking, never paid. Data is localized to the requested lang/country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | 2-letter language code. Default: en. | |
| slug | Yes | Comparison slug (from search_comparisons). | |
| country | No | 2-letter country code. Default: US. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data freshness, sourcing flags, localization, and impartiality ('neutral ranking, never paid'). Does not discuss errors or permissions, but adequate for a read-only fetch.
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 the key action and result, and the second sentence provides critical behavioral context. 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 fetch tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, neutrality, and localization. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error behavior, but not critical.
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 description adds 'localization' context but no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. 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 the tool fetches a 'full structured comparison' with specific components listed, and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it retrieves a single comparison by slug.
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 implicitly suggests use after obtaining a slug (from search_comparisons), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The neutral ranking and localization hint at appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the top-level categories available for a market, with the number of comparisons in each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | 2-letter language code. Default: en. | |
| country | No | 2-letter country code. Default: US. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the tool lists categories and includes comparison counts, which is transparent for a read operation. However, it does not explain how lang/country affect results or any potential error states.
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, clear sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded with the action and context.
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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value (categories with comparison counts). It could mention whether categories have identifiers or if results are paginated, but for a simple list, it is complete enough.
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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced.
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 ('List'), the resource ('top-level categories'), and the context ('for a market', 'with the number of comparisons'). It distinguishes from siblings (get_comparison, search_comparisons) by focusing on categories rather than comparisons.
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 when to use the tool (to list categories), but does not explicitly specify when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives. For a simple listing tool, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search CompareFairly's catalog of neutral, sourced comparisons for a given market. Returns matching comparisons (title, slug, url, json_url, popularity). Use this first to find the exact slug, then call get_comparison.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | 2-letter language code (e.g. en, fr, de, es, it). Default: en. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 50). | |
| query | No | Free-text query, e.g. 'best electric car' or 'password manager'. | |
| country | No | 2-letter country code (e.g. US, FR, DE, GB). Default: US. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it searches a catalog, returns specific fields (title, slug, etc.), and is neutral/sourced. Lacks details on pagination, ordering, or data freshness, but adequate for a read-only search 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?
Extremely concise: two sentences plus return fields list. Front-loaded with verb and resource. 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 4-parameter tool without output schema, the description is fairly complete: explains purpose, workflow, return fields. Could mention ordering or default limit behavior, but covers core aspects.
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% and all parameters are documented. The tool description adds workflow context but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema's parameter 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?
Clearly states the verb 'search' and resource 'catalog of neutral, sourced comparisons'. Distinguishes from sibling 'get_comparison' by mentioning the workflow: find slug first, then call get_comparison.
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 this first to find the exact slug, then call get_comparison', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. Implicitly differentiates from list_categories by focusing on search behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming 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 or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
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!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: search to find comparisons, get to retrieve details, and list categories for browsing. No overlap.
All tools use consistent verb_noun snake_case naming: get_comparison, list_categories, search_comparisons.
Three tools is minimal but adequate for a read-only comparison catalog. Slightly thin but still reasonable.
Covers search, retrieval, and category listing, but missing a way to list all comparisons within a category without a specific search query.