Fail Modes
Server Details
Machine-readable taxonomy of 100+ AI system failure modes spanning factuality, alignment, planning, code generation, and instruction following.
- 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 4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a unique purpose: retrieving a single record, listing categories, listing modes with optional filter, and searching. No overlap exists.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (get_failure_mode, list_categories, list_modes, search_failure_modes).
Four tools are appropriate for a read-only taxonomy server, covering retrieval, browsing, filtering, and search without excess.
For a read-only taxonomy, the surface is complete: get by ID, list categories, list filtered modes, and full-text search. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_failure_modeAInspect
Retrieve the full structured record for a single failure mode by its ID slug (e.g. 'citation-hallucination', 'sycophancy').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The failure mode ID slug, e.g. 'citation-hallucination' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that the tool retrieves a record, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, permissions, rate limits, or the structure of the returned record. This is minimally sufficient but lacks significant detail.
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 that directly states the action and input, with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded 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?
Given that there is no output schema, the description states that it returns a 'full structured record', but does not detail the structure. For a simple retrieval tool, this is acceptable, though more detail would improve completeness.
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 already fully covers the single parameter with a description. The description adds value by providing an example slug ('citation-hallucination') and clarifying it is a slug, which reinforces the schema's 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 the action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('full structured record for a single failure mode'), and the unique identifier ('ID slug'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_categories, list_modes, and search_failure_modes, which are for listing or searching.
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 you have a specific ID slug, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusions. However, the context makes it clear that this is for retrieving one record versus listing or searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_categoriesAInspect
List all taxonomy categories with their IDs, names, descriptions, and mode counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination, or rate limits. It only states what is listed, lacking transparency beyond the basic output.
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-structured sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word 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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (IDs, names, descriptions, mode counts). However, it lacks mention of ordering, pagination, or error handling, which would improve completeness for a list 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?
The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds meaning by detailing the output fields (IDs, names, descriptions, mode counts), which compensates for the lack of parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 (taxonomy categories), and the specific fields returned (IDs, names, descriptions, mode counts). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_modes and get_failure_mode.
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 such as list_modes or search_failure_modes. No context on prerequisites or scenarios is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_modesAInspect
List failure modes, optionally filtered to a single category by category ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category ID to filter by, e.g. 'factuality'. Omit to list all modes. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes listing with optional filter, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, rate limits, or response format. Adequate for a simple 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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loads the action and resource, clearly communicates core functionality.
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 is mostly complete. However, it could mention that for a specific mode use get_failure_mode or that the result is a list of modes.
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 parameter description. The description adds value by explaining that omitting the parameter lists all modes and provides an example value 'factuality', going 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 resource 'failure modes', and distinguishes from siblings: get_failure_mode for individual mode, list_categories for categories, search_failure_modes for 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?
Explicitly mentions optional filtering by category ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. Context signals provide sibling names, but no direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_failure_modesAInspect
Search the Fail Modes taxonomy by symptom text or keyword phrase. Returns ranked matches with id, name, category, and matched context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symptom | Yes | Symptom phrase or keyword to search for, e.g. 'made up a citation' or 'refused to help after pushback' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses that the operation is a search (read-only) and returns ranked matches. Annotations are absent, but the description adequately communicates behavior without contradictions. Could mention pagination or safety, but not essential for a 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?
Two concise sentences: one stating the action, one detailing the return. No unnecessary information, front-loaded with purpose.
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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains input, output fields, and ranking. Could note sorting or limit, 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% with a well-described symptom parameter. Description reiterates the parameter's purpose and provides examples, adding marginal value beyond the schema. No additional constraints or nuances about the parameter are provided.
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 the tool searches the Fail Modes taxonomy by symptom text or keyword, and returns ranked matches with id, name, category, and matched context. Distinguishes from siblings (get_failure_mode retrieves one, list_categories and list_modes list all).
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?
Description implies usage for searching by symptom or keyword, but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of siblings (e.g., use get_failure_mode for known ID). No exclusion or alternative guidance provided.
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!