XunJuZhou MCP
Server Details
Read-only remote MCP connector for AI short drama search and recommendation. It supports keyword search, hot drama ranking, detail lookup, preference-based recommendation, and similar drama search.
- 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 2.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct functionality: searching, similarity, hot ranking, detail, and recommendation. There is no overlap because inputs and outputs are clearly differentiated.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_adjective_noun pattern with snake_case and include 'short_drama'. Verbs are specific to action and nouns are consistent.
With five tools, the server provides a focused set of capabilities for short drama discovery. It covers essential operations without overwhelming the agent.
The tool set covers the full discovery lifecycle: searching, getting details, finding similar, viewing hot list, and getting recommendations. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.
Available Tools
5 toolsfind_similar_short_dramaFind similar short dramasBInspect
Find similar short dramas by id, title, or tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| title | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose how similarity is determined, any side effects, or that the tool is read-only. The limit parameter is not mentioned.
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 concise sentence with no redundant information. It could be slightly expanded but is 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?
Given the complexity of 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify how similarity is computed, output format, or how to combine 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?
The description mentions id, title, and tags as criteria, which adds meaning over the schema that has 0% coverage. However, it does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., AND/OR) or the limit 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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and clearly identifies the resource 'similar short dramas' and the criteria (by id, title, or tags). It distinguishes from siblings like search_short_drama, which is for arbitrary queries.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_short_drama or recommend_short_drama. There is no mention of context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_hot_short_dramaGet hot short dramasCInspect
Return a hot short drama ranking list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | No | 全部 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states the return type. No disclosure of behavior like pagination, caching, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.
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 (one sentence, 8 words), which is efficient for a simple list. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.
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 tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return format, sorting, or category values, making it incomplete for effective use.
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%, and the description does not explain any parameter behavior (limit, category). Params lack enums or descriptions, so the agent must infer meaning.
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 hot short drama ranking list, which matches the name. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'recommend_short_drama' or 'find_similar_short_drama', reducing differentiation.
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. No when/when-not conditions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_short_drama_detailGet short drama detailCInspect
Get short drama detail by id. It never returns net-disk direct links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only behavioral disclosure is that the tool 'never returns net-disk direct links.' This is a single, narrow trait. With no annotations, the description should cover more behavioral aspects (e.g., idempotency, response format) but fails to do so.
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 with two sentences and no fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured to include usage context without becoming verbose.
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 (single param, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits return value details and sibling differentiation, making it hard for an agent to invoke 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description merely says 'by id', adding minimal semantic value. It does not explain the nature or constraints of the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema already shows.
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 'Get short drama detail by id', specifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like find_similar_short_drama or search_short_drama, so it misses the mark for a top score.
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 agent is left without context to decide between this and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recommend_short_dramaRecommend short dramasCInspect
Recommend short dramas from a plain-language preference without calling an LLM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| preference | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that recommendations are made without calling an LLM, but it does not explain how the preference is processed, what the output format is, or any side effects. Crucial behaviors are missing.
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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is front-loaded with the action, but could be more informative without adding bulk. It is minimally adequate.
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 no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the format or quality of recommendations, edge cases (e.g., empty preference), or how the limit parameter affects results. Significant gaps remain.
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 explain the parameters. Only 'preference' is indirectly described as 'plain-language preference', but 'limit' is not mentioned at all. The description fails to add meaning beyond schema defaults.
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: to recommend short dramas based on a plain-language preference, and it distinguishes itself by noting it does not call an LLM. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_short_drama or find_similar_short_drama.
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 like search_short_drama or get_hot_short_drama. The description implies it is for natural language preferences but does not specify limitations or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_short_dramaSearch short dramasCInspect
Search short dramas by keyword, category, and tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| keyword | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| pageSize | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a read operation (safe), that results are paginated, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about behavior.
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 sentence and not verbose, but it sacrifices informative content for brevity. It is not optimally structured as it lacks front-loaded critical details like pagination parameters.
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 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain pagination (page, pageSize), result format, or behavior with empty/partial queries. The tool cannot be used effectively without additional documentation.
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 0%, so description must add parameter meaning. It names 'keyword, category, and tags' but provides no explanation of their roles, formats, or interactions. For example, it does not clarify if tags support multiple values or if category is exact match.
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 the verb 'Search' and resource 'short dramas', but lacks scope or differentiation from sibling tools like 'find_similar_short_drama' or 'recommend_short_drama'. It lists parameters but does not clarify what the search returns (e.g., a list, paginated results).
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 siblings. No mention of prerequisites, filtering behavior, or exclusions. The agent gets no help in choosing between search and other lookup tools.
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!