D Fetcher
Server Details
Vitamin D synthesis calculator: sun position, UV, IU/min, time to dose, sunburn risk, daily window.
- 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 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct role: geocode provides location coordinates, describe_skin_types defines skin type for the calculation, and calculate performs the vitamin D synthesis computation. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names are lowercase verbs or verb_noun phrases (calculate, describe_skin_types, geocode), following a predictable and consistent pattern without mixing conventions.
Three tools neatly cover the essential steps of the vitamin D calculation workflow: location input, skin type selection, and computation. The count is minimal yet complete for the domain.
The tool set provides all necessary inputs (location via geocode, skin type via describe_skin_types) and the core calculation (calculate) with integrated UV index forecasting. There are no missing operations or dead ends.
Available Tools
3 toolscalculateVitamin D synthesis calculatorAInspect
Calculate vitamin D synthesis at a given location and time. Returns sun position, UV index, IU/min, minutes to reach the target dose, MED (sunburn threshold), the peak window, and optional 15-min day / monthly year curves. UV index uses a live satellite-driven forecast where available, with a clear-sky fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | Age in years (used for the age factor). | |
| day | No | Include 15-min samples through the local day. | |
| lat | Yes | Latitude in degrees. | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude in degrees. | |
| area | No | Exposed body fraction. 0.10 face+hands, 0.25 arms+face, 0.40 t-shirt+shorts, 0.85 near-full body. | |
| date | No | ISO 8601 timestamp or epoch ms. Defaults to now. | |
| skin | No | Fitzpatrick skin type 1–6. Use describe_skin_types if unknown. | |
| year | No | Include monthly solar-noon samples with cloud climatology. | |
| scalp | No | Scalp coverage. "bald" adds ~3.5% BSA. | hair |
| target | No | Daily vitamin D target in IU. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that UV index uses a live satellite-driven forecast with a clear-sky fallback, adding valuable behavioral context. However, it does not cover all potential behaviors (e.g., failure modes 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?
Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, list outputs, and explain the UV index data source. Every sentence provides unique value without redundancy.
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 10 parameters, no output schema, the description lists key outputs (sun position, UV index, IU/min, etc.) but does not describe their structure or types. Nonetheless, it covers the main functional outcomes adequately for a calculator 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds output information but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already 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 states 'Calculate vitamin D synthesis at a given location and time' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this tool from siblings (describe_skin_types, geocode) that have different purposes.
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 usage for calculating vitamin D synthesis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
describe_skin_typesFitzpatrick skin type referenceAInspect
Returns the six Fitzpatrick skin types with sun-reactivity behavior and descriptive ancestry hints. Call this when the user's skin type is unknown so you can pick the closest match before calling calculate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the output is static reference data (six types with behavior and ancestry hints), which is transparent enough for a simple read-only operation. No side effects mentioned, but none are expected.
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, each serving a clear purpose. First sentence front-loads the core function, second provides usage guidance. 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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and unrelated siblings, the description completely covers the tool's purpose and usage context. A simple lookup tool needs no more detail.
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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline is 4. Description adds context by explaining when to use, but no parameter semantics needed.
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 it returns the six Fitzpatrick skin types with sun-reactivity behavior and ancestry hints, using specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'six Fitzpatrick skin types'. It distinguishes from siblings (calculate, geocode) by not performing calculations or geocoding.
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 call: when the user's skin type is unknown, to pick the closest match before calling 'calculate'. This provides clear context and alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
geocodeResolve a place to lat/lonAInspect
Turn a place name, postal code, or "code, CC" string into { lat, lon, label }. Auto-detects US/CA/GB/NL/JP/BR postal patterns; ambiguous digit-only codes default to US unless the caller appends a country code (e.g. "10115, DE"). Falls back to Open-Meteo place-name search for everything else.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | City name, postal code, or "CODE, CC" (e.g. "75001, FR"). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-detection of postal patterns for several countries, default behavior for ambiguous inputs, and fallback to Open-Meteo search. These are key behavioral traits for a geocoding 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?
The description is very concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and output format, while the second provides essential disambiguation rules. No extraneous 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?
Given only one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers input format, auto-detection behavior, and fallback mechanism. An agent can confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the auto-detection and fallback logic, and by providing examples of the input format (e.g., '10115, DE'). This goes beyond the schema's description of the query parameter.
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 resolves a place name, postal code, or 'CODE, CC' string into latitude, longitude, and label. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from unrelated sibling tools like 'calculate' and 'describe_skin_types'.
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 explains when to use the tool: for converting place names or postal codes to coordinates. It also provides specific guidance on ambiguous digit-only codes defaulting to US unless a country code is appended, and mentions fallback behavior, though it does not explicitly list cases where the tool should not be used.
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!