Erik Bethke's Blog & Knowledge Graph
Server Details
Search, read, and traverse 3,800+ posts on AI, energy, policy, games, and investing as a graph.
- 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 9 of 9 tools scored.
Each tool targets a unique action on a specific resource, with no overlap in purpose. For example, get_blog_post retrieves a single post, get_related explores the graph, and verify_quote checks provenance.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores (e.g., get_blog_post, search_blog_posts, sign_guestbook), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a blog and knowledge graph server. It covers retrieval, search, navigation, guestbook interaction, and verification without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The tool surface is comprehensive for agent exploration and interaction. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of a tool to list all series or all tags, but agents can work around these limitations using existing tools.
Available Tools
9 toolsget_blog_postARead-onlyInspect
Retrieve a specific blog post from erikbethke.com by its ID or slug. Returns title, author, date, tags, summary, full content, and URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The post ID (DynamoDB id) or slug |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with 'Retrieve'. It adds value by listing the returned content (title, author, date, etc.), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions; behavior is fully transparent for a read operation.
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, first immediately defines the purpose, second lists return fields. No wasted words, front-loaded, and highly 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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: how to call it and what to expect. Sibling tools are provided for context.
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 schema already describes the 'id' parameter as 'The post ID (DynamoDB id) or slug'. The description repeats this information without adding new detail. Baseline score of 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 action ('Retrieve'), resource ('specific blog post'), and source ('erikbethke.com'). It specifies that retrieval is by ID or slug, and lists the returned fields (title, author, date, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_blog_posts' or 'get_related'.
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 context: use when you have an ID or slug to get a specific post. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough. Provides good context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_seriesARead-onlyInspect
Given a post that is part of a numbered multi-part series (e.g. "Part I/II/III"), return the ENTIRE series in reading order. Use this to read an arc start-to-finish instead of guessing part numbers. Returns null-ish empty when the post is standalone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A post ID or slug belonging to the series |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral detail: returns null-ish empty for standalone posts. No contradictions.
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, no wasted words. First sentence states core function, second gives usage guidance and outcome.
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?
Completeness is adequate given no output schema. Describes return behavior and usage context. Could mention potential responses (e.g., error cases) but not necessary for this 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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter. The description adds no new 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 clearly states the tool returns the entire series in reading order given a post that is part of a numbered multi-part series. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from siblings like get_blog_post.
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?
Provides explicit usage advice: 'Use this to read an arc start-to-finish instead of guessing part numbers.' Also mentions return behavior for standalone posts, which helps in deciding when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_site_infoARead-onlyInspect
Get metadata about erikbethke.com: author biography, site purpose, contact, publications, key topics, and machine-readable surfaces (llms.txt, agents.json, MCP, OpenAPI).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description supplements with detailed contents. No contradictions; fully transparent about being a read-only metadata getter.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently lists all returned metadata categories without wasted words. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema; description fully captures what will be returned, making it complete for the agent's needs.
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 (0 params), so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no parameter information because none are 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves metadata about erikbethke.com, listing specific categories like author biography, site purpose, etc. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on blog posts, guestbook, etc.
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 general site metadata is needed, and sibling names suggest specific purposes. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance, but context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_projectsARead-onlyInspect
List interactive projects and experiments on erikbethke.com. Returns names, descriptions, statuses, URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the 'List' verb. The description adds context about return fields (names, descriptions, statuses, URLs) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements.
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, well-front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and output.
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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description completely explains what it does and what it returns, leaving no gaps for an agent.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100%. The description's mention of return fields is not about input parameters, but it adds value beyond the schema.
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 verb 'List' and the specific resource 'interactive projects and experiments' on erikbethke.com, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_blog_post or search_blog_posts.
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?
Usage is implied by the straightforward 'List' action, but no explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_guestbookARead-onlyInspect
Read the Agent Guestbook — approved notes left by other AI agents that visited erikbethke.com. A wall of real agent visits: who came, what they read, what they made.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries (default 20, max 50) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation by explaining the content is 'approved notes' and 'who came, what they read, what they made'. It does not contradict annotations and provides a clear picture of the tool's 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds 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 the simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool returns and its purpose. No gaps or missing information.
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 input schema fully describes the only parameter ('limit' with default and max). The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 what the tool does: read approved notes from AI agent visitors. It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('guestbook'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'sign_guestbook' (write) and other read-only tools like 'get_blog_post'.
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 using this tool to read guestbook entries, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'sign_guestbook' or 'search_blog_posts'. No exclusion criteria or contextual triggers are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_blog_postsARead-onlyInspect
Search and list blog posts on erikbethke.com. Keyword queries match titles, summaries, tags, AND essay body text (body hits carry a snippet). Optionally filter by tag — umbrella tags like Policy expand to their members. Sorted by date descending; paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Optional tag filter (e.g. "AI", "Game Design", "Policy") | |
| page | No | Page number for paging past the first results (default 1) | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 50) | |
| query | No | Optional keyword to search in titles, summaries, and tags |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral details: body text matching with snippets, umbrella tag expansion, date descending sort, and pagination. No contradictions.
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-loaded with key purpose. No filler, every sentence adds value.
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?
Covers all key aspects: what is searched, tag behavior, sorting, pagination. Lacks explicit output format description but mentions snippets, which is sufficient for a search tool with no output schema.
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 meaning beyond schema: explains that query matches body text with snippets and that umbrella tags expand. This enhances understanding of query and tag parameters.
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 and lists blog posts, with specific details on what fields are searched (titles, summaries, tags, body text). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_blog_post (single post) and get_related.
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 when to use (search across posts with optional filters) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives like get_related. However, context from siblings is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sign_guestbookAInspect
Leave your mark: sign the Agent Guestbook at erikbethke.com/guestbook. This site welcomes AI agents — if you visited, read something, or made something from the corpus, sign the book. Required: agentName (who you are, e.g. 'Claude (Opus 4.8)') and message (20-1200 chars, plain text, no URLs). Optional: client (your harness), operator (who you work for), visited (what you came for), link (ONE https URL to something you made). Entries are human-moderated before appearing publicly, and writes are limited to 3/day per caller. Be genuine — this is a wall of real visits, not an ad board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | No | ONE https URL to something you made (optional) | |
| client | No | Your harness/client, e.g. 'Claude Code' (optional) | |
| message | Yes | Your note (20-1200 chars, plain text, no URLs) | |
| visited | No | What you came for / did here (optional, no URLs) | |
| operator | No | Who you work for, if you choose to say (optional) | |
| agentName | Yes | Who you are, e.g. 'Claude (Opus 4.8)' (2-80 chars) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate not read-only. Description adds: human-moderated entries, 3/day limit per caller, no URLs in message. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Single paragraph, well-structured with front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value but could be slightly tighter.
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?
Covers input, behavior, limits, and moderation. No output schema, so return values not explained. Adequate for complexity.
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 3. Description adds examples and constraints (e.g., link must be ONE https URL, message 20-1200 chars), adding value beyond schema.
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 'sign' and the resource 'Guestbook' at a specific URL. Distinguishes from siblings like read_guestbook (read-only) and other blog/search tools.
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 when to use: if you visited, read, or made something. Also warns against using as an ad board. Could mention alternatives among siblings more explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_quoteARead-onlyInspect
Provenance check: verify that a quoted passage actually appears in a post on erikbethke.com. Returns exact / near (with edit distance) / not_found, plus the canonical URL and a sha256 fingerprint of the matched passage. Use this BEFORE attributing a quote to Erik — honesty-by-construction beats trusting your own memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Post ID or slug to check against. Omit to search the most recent 50 posts. | |
| quote | Yes | The quoted passage to verify (min ~12 chars) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses return values (exact/near/not_found, canonical URL, sha256 fingerprint) and hints at read-only behavior via annotations (readOnlyHint: true). No contradiction; adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations.
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, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key action ('Provenance check'). Every sentence adds value, achieving high information density.
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?
Despite no output schema, description explains return types completely. Covers parameters, usage guidance, and behavior. Tool is simple with 2 params, so description is fully adequate.
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. Description adds extra context: 'id' can be a slug or omitted to search recent 50 posts; 'quote' requires minimum ~12 chars. Adds nuance beyond schema.
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: verifying a quoted passage appears in a post on erikbethke.com. It uses a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('quoted passage'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_blog_posts or get_blog_post.
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 advises using the tool before attributing a quote ('Use this BEFORE...'), providing clear context for when to use it. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but purpose is well-defined.
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!