Free2AITools
Server Details
Search, rank, and compare 500,000+ AI models, datasets, papers from 13+ platforms. Hardware-aware model selection with VRAM and license constraints. 5 tools: search, rank, explain, select_model, compare.
- 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 3.2/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: compare models side-by-side, explain a specific tool's ranking, rank for a task context, search broadly, and select with constraints. No ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent 'free2aitools_verb' pattern with lowercase verbs (compare, explain, rank, search, select_model), making the set predictable.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for evaluating and selecting AI tools, neither too sparse nor overloaded.
The tool surface covers comparison, explanation, ranking, search, and constrained selection. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list all available tools without ranking, but search and rank suffice.
Available Tools
5 toolsfree2aitools_compareBInspect
Compare 2-10 AI models side-by-side showing FNI scores, factor breakdown (Semantic, Authority, Popularity, Recency, Quality), specs (params, VRAM, context length), and license. Read-only, no side effects. Use this when the user wants to decide between specific known models; use free2aitools_select_model to discover models first, then compare the top candidates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Entity IDs to compare (2-10). Use model_id from select_model results or id from search results (e.g. ["hf-model--meta-llama--llama-3-8b", "hf-model--google--gemma-2-27b"]) |
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 implies a read-only comparison but does not explicitly state side effects, data destruction, or authorization needs. The term 'FNI factor decomposition' suggests computation but lacks elaboration.
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 that directly states the tool's function without superfluous words. 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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and siblings, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks usage context and outcome details. It is minimally complete for a simple tool but could be improved.
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 provides a clear description for the sole parameter (ids: 'Model IDs to compare (2-10)'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds the context of FNI decomposition but does not further clarify parameter usage, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 compares 2-10 AI models side-by-side using FNI factor decomposition, distinguishing it from siblings like 'rank' and 'explain'. However, the acronym FNI is not explained, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 (e.g., free2aitools_rank or free2aitools_explain). The description lacks context for selecting this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
free2aitools_explainAInspect
Explain why a specific entity received its FNI ranking score by showing the 5-factor breakdown: Semantic (S), Authority (A), Popularity (P), Recency (R), Quality (Q). FNI = 0.35S + 0.25A + 0.15P + 0.15R + 0.10*Q. Read-only. Use this after search or rank to understand why an entity scored high or low; use free2aitools_compare instead for side-by-side differences between multiple entities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Entity name or ID to explain (e.g. "Llama-3", "hf-model--meta-llama--llama-3-8b") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The only behavioral hint is that it 'explains' a score, which implies 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and has no unnecessary words. It is concise and to the point.
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 description is adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., what 'factor breakdown' includes) and the scope of tools it covers. Given no output schema, more context would be beneficial.
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 has 100% coverage with a description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description reinforces that the parameter is a name for searching, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter semantics are adequately handled by 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 tool's function: explaining the FNI ranking score of an AI tool and getting a factor breakdown. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'free2aitools_rank' and 'free2aitools_compare' by focusing on explaining a specific 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?
The description implies usage context: when you need a breakdown of a tool's score. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'free2aitools_compare' or 'free2aitools_search', nor does it provide conditions for not using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
free2aitools_rankCInspect
Rank AI entities by FNI score for a specific task. Returns a sorted list with scores and metadata. Read-only, no side effects. Use this when you know the task category and want a ranked list; use free2aitools_search for keyword-based discovery, or free2aitools_select_model when you need hardware-constrained recommendations with rationale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | Optional task context to combine with query for more targeted ranking | |
| limit | No | Max results to return (1-20, default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search query describing what to rank (e.g. "text generation", "object detection") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, without mentioning side effects, data access, permissions, rate limits, or any safety considerations. For a ranking tool that likely processes data or makes API calls, this is insufficient.
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, front-loaded with the core action. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. Could be slightly more informative without ballooning, but it 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 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what FNI score is, how ranking is performed, what the output contains, or how to effectively use the parameters. More detail is needed for an agent to fully understand and invoke the 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 only 25% (only 'task' parameter has a description). The description adds minimal parameter info: it mentions 'task context' but does not explain 'query', 'limit', or 'constraints'. Thus, it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 ranks AI tools by FNI score for a task context. It mentions the verb 'Rank' and specific metric 'FNI score', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'free2aitools_search' or 'free2aitools_compare', which would help an agent choose.
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 says 'Ideal for AI agents selecting the best tool', which provides context for when to use it. But it offers no guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or conditions. This is adequate but lacks exclusionary advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
free2aitools_searchCInspect
Search the Free2AITools catalog of AI models, datasets, papers, agents, spaces, tools, and prompts by keyword. Returns results ranked by FNI (Free2AITools Nexus Index), a 5-factor score combining Semantic relevance, Authority, Popularity, Recency, and Quality. Read-only, no side effects. Use this for broad discovery; use free2aitools_select_model instead when you have specific hardware or license constraints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by entity type (default: all) | |
| limit | No | Max results to return (1-20, default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Natural language search query (e.g. "code generation", "image segmentation") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states 'returns ranked results' without indicating read-only status, mutability, authorization needs, or rate limits. The description implies a read operation but lacks explicit transparency.
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 of 13 words, making it concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, lacking context on FNI and parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the action but not sufficiently informative for an agent.
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, no annotations, and three parameters, the description does not cover return format, pagination, or how results are structured. The sibling tools indicate a need for differentiation, but the description omits that context entirely.
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 has 33% description coverage (only 'query' has a description). The tool description does not elaborate on the 'type' enum or 'limit' parameter, nor does it explain what 'FNI score' means. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful parameter semantics.
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 searches and ranks AI tools, models, datasets, and papers by FNI score, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'free2aitools_rank' by combining search and ranking, making its purpose clear.
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 'free2aitools_rank' or 'free2aitools_compare'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context-specific usage, leaving the agent without cues for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
free2aitools_select_modelAInspect
Find the best AI model for a task given hardware and license constraints. Returns ranked recommendations with per-model rationale explaining why each was selected. Read-only, no side effects. Use this when the user specifies VRAM, parameter count, or license requirements; use free2aitools_search for unconstrained keyword search, or free2aitools_rank for task-based ranking without hardware filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Task name or natural language description (e.g. "text-generation", "code assistant", "image classification") | |
| limit | No | Max recommendations (1-20, default 5) | |
| explain | No | Include per-model rationale text (default true) | |
| constraints | No | Hardware and license filters (all optional) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning 'ranked recommendations with rationale,' which gives some output behavior. However, it omits key details such as error handling, behavior when constraints are infeasible, or any side effects. The description adds moderate value but lacks comprehensive transparency.
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 at two sentences, conveying the core purpose and output without extraneous text. Every word earns its place for a tool that requires brevity.
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 the input schema (nested objects, multiple constraints) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter, how constraints interact, or the format of the 'ranked recommendations,' leaving significant gaps for effective tool invocation.
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 low (25%), so the description should add meaning to parameters. It only references 'hardware/license constraints,' which maps to the constraints object but does not detail individual parameters like 'task' or 'limit'. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 ('Select'), the resource ('best AI model'), and the context ('for a task with hardware/license constraints'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like free2aitools_compare and free2aitools_search, as selection under constraints is a unique function.
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 model selection under constraints but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer from the tool names alone.
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!