AI regulation, data protection and compliance notes from CSIDIA, plus its capability catalogue.
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.
Average 3.5/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: capabilities returns static profile, search finds articles, fetch retrieves full text, and match_use_case dynamically maps needs to capabilities. No functional overlap.
Naming is inconsistent: 'capabilities' is a noun, while 'fetch', 'search', and 'match_use_case' are verbs. No uniform pattern (e.g., all verbs or all noun_verb).
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—providing company info, article search, and use-case matching. No redundancy or unnecessary tools.
Covers key operations: profile lookup, article search and retrieval, and intelligent need-to-capability matching. No obvious gaps for the stated domain of operational notes and capabilities.
capabilitiesCSIDIA group services and profileBInspectProfilo del gruppo CSIDIA e catalogo dei servizi: chi siamo, posizionamento, capacità (cosa facciamo, risultati, settori, modelli di erogazione, pagina, articoli correlati), settori, vincoli e come iniziare. csidia = dati/AI/conformità, splidia = fibra ottica/reti/data center. / Profile of the CSIDIA group and its service catalogue: positioning, capabilities, sectors, delivery models, constraints and how to start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Marchio di cui restituire il profilo (default all) / brand to profile | |
| detail | No | false (default) = una riga per capacità, risposta compatta; true = descrizione completa, risultati, domande tipiche e articoli correlati / false (default) = one line per capability; true = full detail | |
| language | No | Lingua dei testi (default it) / text language | |
| capability_id | No | Dettaglio di una sola capacità, per id (es. 'conformita-documentale-assistita') / detail for a single capability id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only status, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It only describes the informational content, missing the opportunity to clarify safety or constraints.
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 bilingual, doubling its length, but it is structured with a list of included topics. It front-loads the main purpose, though some redundancy between languages reduces conciseness. Adequate but not optimized.
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 purpose (returning a profile) and the absence of output schema, the description covers the main aspects: content type, filtering parameters, and brand differentiation. It does not detail result structure or pagination, but these are not critical for this informational 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little extra meaning beyond the schema. It restates the brand, detail level, language, and capability ID options without providing new context or formatting details.
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 a profile of the CSIDIA group and its service catalogue, listing specific content like positioning, capabilities, and sectors. It also distinguishes between the csidia and splidia brands, making the purpose specific and differentiating it from siblings like 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (fetch, match_use_case, search). The description does not mention contexts where this tool is preferred or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetchFetch a full articleAInspectRitorna il testo integrale di un articolo dato il suo id (l'URL restituito da 'search'). / Returns the full text of an article given its id (the URL returned by 'search').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id/URL dell'articolo |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'returns the full text', but does not explicitly confirm idempotency or mention any side effects, authentication, or rate limits.
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 extremely concise with no wasted words. Bilingual text is appropriate and 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?
While the tool is simple, the description omits details about the return format (e.g., plain text, HTML, JSON) which would be helpful for an agent to parse the response 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%, and the description adds value by specifying that the id is the URL returned by 'search', which clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's brief description.
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 returns the full text of an article given its id, and explicitly references the sibling tool 'search' as the source of the id, distinguishing it well.
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 indicates that the id should be a URL returned by 'search', providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
match_use_caseMatch a need to CSIDIA capabilitiesAInspectData la descrizione libera di un'esigenza operativa, restituisce le capacità del gruppo CSIDIA più pertinenti, con il perché (termini che hanno fatto match), il sito di riferimento, il modello di erogazione, gli articoli correlati e il passo successivo. Se non c'è corrispondenza lo dice e restituisce il profilo sintetico. / Given a free-text operational need, returns the most relevant CSIDIA capabilities with the reason for the match, reference site, delivery model, related articles and next step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | Descrizione libera dell'esigenza o del problema / free-text description of the need | |
| limit | No | Numero massimo di capacità (default 3) | |
| sector | No | Settore di riferimento, id o nome (es. manufacturing, energy, logistics, public-sector, healthcare, defence, telecomunicazioni, data-center, industria) / sector id or name | |
| language | No | Lingua dei testi (default it) / text language |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states returns (suggesting read-only) and describes output structure including failure case. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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 two sentences (Italian and English) that clearly state purpose and output. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly more concise by omitting the duplicate languages.
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, the description adequately covers return fields (reason, site, delivery model, articles, next step) and handles the no-match case. Missing some details like error handling or definition of 'synthetic profile', but sufficient for a tool with 4 well-documented 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the return structure, which is not parameter-level. 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's purpose: given a free-text operational need, it returns the most relevant CSIDIA capabilities with match reasons, site, delivery model, related articles, and next step. It also describes behavior on no match. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'capabilities' (likely listing all) or 'search' (generic 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?
The description implies use when matching a free-text need to capabilities, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'capabilities' or 'search' instead). 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.
searchSearch CSIDIA group articlesBInspectCerca negli articoli (Note operative) di csidia.com (dati, AI, conformità nei settori critici) e splidia.com (fibra ottica, reti, data center). Ritorna una lista di risultati con id da passare a 'fetch'. / Searches the operational notes of csidia.com and splidia.com. Returns results whose id can be passed to 'fetch'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Filtro sito (default all) | |
| limit | No | Numero massimo di risultati (default 8) | |
| query | Yes | Termini di ricerca / search terms | |
| language | No | Filtro lingua (default all) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only mentions the output format (list with IDs) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, caching, or error handling. It also does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only.
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 bilingual, which increases length unnecessarily. It is front-loaded with Italian then English, making it redundant. The content is adequate but could be more concise by using only one language.
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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description gives minimal context: it lists sites and output ID format. It lacks information on error scenarios, pagination, ordering, or how to interpret results. The connection to 'fetch' is mentioned but not explained.
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 each parameter having a description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond confirming the sites and output ID structure. It does not elaborate on parameter behavior or constraints beyond what the schema 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 it searches articles/operational notes from two specific websites and returns results with IDs for use with 'fetch'. It's specific about the resource and verb. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'capabilities' or 'match_use_case', leaving room for 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 implies a usage pattern (search then pass ID to fetch), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. No exclusions or guidance on when not to use this tool compared to siblings.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!