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 4.7/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Significant overlap exists between free2aitools_search, free2aitools_rank, and free2aitools_select_model. All return FNI-ranked results with largely similar functionality; the descriptions attempt to differentiate but boundaries remain unclear. Compare and explain are distinct, but the discovery tools cause confusion.
All tools share the 'free2aitools_' prefix and lowercase snake_case, but four use single verbs (compare, explain, rank, search) while one uses 'select_model' (verb_noun), creating a minor inconsistency. Overall naming is predictable and readable.
With 5 tools covering discovery, explanation, and comparison of AI models, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose. Each tool has a defined role, and the set is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The tools cover key workflows: keyword search, metadata filtering, ranking, single-entity explanation, and multi-entity comparison. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to retrieve full details of a specific entity without explanation, but this can be approximated. Overall, the surface is largely complete for discovery and analysis.
Available Tools
5 toolsfree2aitools_compareAInspect
Compare 2-25 AI catalog entities side-by-side — any catalog entity type (models, datasets, papers, tools), not models only — showing FNI scores, factor breakdown (Semantic, Authority, Popularity, Recency, Quality), specs (params, VRAM, context length) where applicable, and license. USE WHEN you already have 2+ specific entity ids and want a structured side-by-side. DO NOT USE to discover entities, to run/execute a model, or to get a recommendation; the tool presents comparison facts for the caller to decide on, is not an inference router, and returns no paid placement. Read-only, no side effects, no billing. Cold upper-range multi-paper requests may return a transient 503 (retry after the indicated delay). Use free2aitools_select_model or free2aitools_search to discover candidates first, then compare the top ones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Catalog entity IDs to compare (2-25), any entity type. Use the id from search/rank/select_model results verbatim (e.g. ["hf-model--meta-llama--llama-3-8b", "arxiv--2401.00001"]) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only, no side effects, no billing, and a transient 503 error with retry advice. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits.
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 moderately long but every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured with clear usage boundaries and behavior notes.
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 complexity (multiple entity types, attributes, error conditions), the description is complete: it lists comparison dimensions, usage constraints, error behavior, and alternative tools. No output schema exists, but the description explains what is returned.
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 description for the 'ids' parameter. The description adds examples of valid ID formats and reiterates that any entity type is accepted, going beyond the schema's basic 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 tool compares 2-25 AI catalog entities side-by-side, covering any entity type (models, datasets, papers, tools). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming alternative tools for discovery.
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 when to use (when you have 2+ specific entity IDs), when not to use (not for discovery, execution, recommendation), and names alternatives (free2aitools_select_model or free2aitools_search).
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 one specific entity received its FNI score, returning 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 (the S factor is a baseline, surfaced with a caveat, not a measured per-entity value). USE WHEN you already have one entity id (from a search/rank/select result) and want its score rationale. DO NOT USE to search/discover entities, to run a model, or to get a recommendation — this only describes scoring evidence for the caller to interpret. Read-only, no side effects, no billing. Use free2aitools_compare instead for side-by-side differences across 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 provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, no side effects, no billing, and reveals that the S factor is a baseline with a caveat, not a measured per-entity value.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose and formula, every sentence adds value. However, the detailed formula could be considered slightly verbose; still concise overall.
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, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (5-factor breakdown with weights), usage constraints, and alternative tools. It is fully complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 the id parameter described. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's example and description. Baseline 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 tool explains why an entity received its FNI score with a 5-factor breakdown. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is for a specific entity already obtained from search/rank/select, not for discovery or comparison.
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 'USE WHEN you already have one entity id...' and 'DO NOT USE to search/discover...' with specific exclusions and a mention of alternative sibling tool free2aitools_compare for side-by-side comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
free2aitools_rankAInspect
Keyword-search AI entities using the task/query text as input and return FNI-ranked catalog entries. Mechanically this is the same keyword search as free2aitools_search with the task text folded into the query; it does NOT perform task-fit recommendation, compatibility analysis, model inference, or model execution, and it is NOT an inference router. USE WHEN you have task text and want catalog entries ordered by FNI. The caller makes the final selection; results are never paid placement and there is no billing. Read-only, no side effects. May return a retryable transient 503 under cold-path or fallback budget limits; retry according to Retry-After. Use free2aitools_search for plain keyword discovery, or free2aitools_select_model to apply hardware/license metadata filters.
| 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?
The description discloses read-only, no side effects, no billing, and mentions possible transient 503 errors with retry guidance. Without annotations, this covers key behavioral traits, though details on auth and rate limits are omitted.
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 well-structured: main action first, then exclusions and sibling contrast, usage guidance, behavioral notes. It is concise but thorough, with no unnecessary repetition.
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 lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide to use this tool. It explains the ranking mechanism (FNI) and differentiates from similar tools. Some detail on output structure would be beneficial but is 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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining how 'task' combines with 'query' for ranking and restating the purpose of each parameter, reinforcing 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 performs 'Keyword-search AI entities using the task/query text' and returns 'FNI-ranked catalog entries'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with free2aitools_search, free2aitools_select_model, and explicitly stating what it does NOT do (task-fit recommendation, 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE WHEN you have task text and want catalog entries ordered by FNI.' It also names alternatives: 'Use free2aitools_search for plain keyword discovery, or free2aitools_select_model to apply hardware/license metadata filters.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
free2aitools_searchAInspect
Keyword discovery over the Free2AITools catalog of AI models, datasets, papers, and tools. Returns matching catalog entries (metadata) ranked by FNI (Free2AITools Nexus Index), a 5-factor score: Semantic relevance, Authority, Popularity, Recency, Quality. The Semantic factor is a query-time baseline, not a live per-entity measurement (fni_s is returned null with a note). USE WHEN you need to discover which AI entities exist for a topic or keyword. DO NOT USE for general web search, to run/call/execute a model, to get a generated or inferred answer, or to route to an inference provider — this returns catalog metadata only, for the calling agent to reason over and decide on. Free discovery catalog: results are FNI-ranked, never paid placement / sponsored, and there is no billing or payment. Read-only, no side effects. May return a retryable transient 503 under cold-path or fallback budget limits; retry according to Retry-After. 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?
Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: read-only, no side effects, free/unsponsored, transient 503 errors with retry guidance, and details on FNI score limitations (non-live semantic factor).
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 well-structured and front-loaded, but slightly verbose. However, all sentences provide value given no annotations. Could be trimmed slightly but still 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?
For a tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers return format, ranking, error handling, use cases, and boundaries. No gaps for agent decision-making.
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 description adds little beyond schema. The description's context about returning metadata is helpful but not parameter-specific. Baseline 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 tool's function: keyword discovery over a specific catalog of AI entities, returning metadata ranked by FNI. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming free2aitools_select_model as an alternative for specific constraints.
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 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE' guidance, covering when to use for discovery and when not to (e.g., general web search, execution). Mentions alternative sibling tool for hardware/license constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
free2aitools_select_modelAInspect
Filter the Free2AITools catalog by declared hardware/license metadata and return FNI-ranked candidate entries. USE WHEN you have concrete constraints (VRAM, params, license, context length, local-runnability) and want candidates narrowed by them. Constraints are metadata/heuristic filters over stored fields, NOT verified compatibility analysis, model inference, or model execution; this tool does not decide for you and is not an inference router. The caller is responsible for the final selection. Results are FNI-ranked, never paid placement, with no billing. Read-only, no side effects. Use free2aitools_search for unconstrained keyword discovery, or free2aitools_rank for keyword ranking without metadata filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Task name or natural language description (e.g. "text-generation", "code assistant", "image classification") | |
| limit | No | Max entries returned (1-20, default 5) | |
| explain | No | Include per-entry fni_summary (factual FNI factor/spec facts) and caveats in the response (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?
No annotations, but description fully discloses: read-only, no side effects, FNI-ranked without paid placement, heuristic nature of filters, and that caller is responsible for final selection.
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?
Efficient structure: core function first, then limitations, caller responsibility, guarantees, and alternatives. No redundant sentences.
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 usage, limitations, and ranking method; lacks detailed output structure description, but 'FNI-ranked candidate entries' and explain parameter give reasonable expectation.
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 detailed descriptions; description adds critical context that constraints are heuristic and not verified, complementing schema well.
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?
Clear verb "Filter" and resource "Free2AITools catalog" with explicit distinction from siblings: mentions free2aitools_search and free2aitools_rank for different use cases.
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?
Explicit 'USE WHEN' with concrete constraints, clarifies limitations (not verified, not inference router), and provides alternative tools for different scenarios.
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!