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.
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.
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.
free2aitools_compareAInspectCompare 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"]) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It states the tool is read-only with no side effects or billing, notes a potential transient 503 error for cold multi-paper requests with retry guidance, and clarifies it is not an inference router and returns no paid placement. These details exceed typical behavioral disclosure.
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: core action first, then usage conditions, then behavioral details, and finally a pointer to sibling tools. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.
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 lists what the comparison shows (FNI scores, factor breakdown, specs, license) and mentions error conditions (503). It lacks a description of the output format but is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the input schema already provides (e.g., id format, count range). The description repeats the schema's example but adds no new semantic detail.
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: compare 2-25 AI catalog entities side-by-side, listing what it shows (FNI scores, factor breakdown, specs, license). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting that this tool is for comparison and suggests using free2aitools_select_model or free2aitools_search 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?
The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: '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.' It also names sibling tools as alternatives for discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
free2aitools_explainAInspectExplain 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") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: it states 'Read-only, no side effects, no billing' and clarifies the caveat about the S factor (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?
Every sentence serves a clear purpose, explaining function, usage, limitations, and formula. It is slightly verbose but well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.
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 scoring formula and the absence of an output schema, the description completely covers all aspects: purpose, usage, behavioral traits, parameter details, formula breakdown, and caveats. It leaves no ambiguity.
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% for the single required parameter 'id'. The description adds meaning by providing example values like 'Llama-3' and specifying the format 'hf-model--meta-llama--llama-3-8b'.
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, and includes the formula. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like free2aitools_compare by specifying its unique purpose.
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 usage guidance: 'USE WHEN you already have one entity id...' and 'DO NOT USE to search/discover entities...'. It also names an alternative sibling (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_rankAInspectKeyword-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") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, lack of side effects, possibility of transient 503 errors with retry guidance, and that results are not paid placement. Missing details on auth requirements or response format, but sufficient for agent decision.
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?
Description is succinct and well-structured: front-loaded with core purpose, then mechanics, usage conditions, and alternatives. No superfluous 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?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter semantics, error handling, and sibling differentiation comprehensively.
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 covers 100% of parameters, establishing baseline of 3. Description adds value by explaining that task is folded into query for ranking, and that limit default is 10 with range 1-20, going beyond schema descriptions.
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 it keyword-searches AI entities and returns FNI-ranked catalog entries, explicitly distinguishing it from non-search roles like task-fit recommendation or inference routing. It also names sibling tools to delineate usage.
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 states when to use ('task text and want catalog entries ordered by FNI') and provides clear alternatives: free2aitools_search for plain keyword discovery and free2aitools_select_model for hardware/license filters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
free2aitools_searchAInspectKeyword 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") |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers read-only behavior, no side effects, ranking details (FNI), semantic factor caveat, and potential 503 error with retry guidance. This fully informs the agent of 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 thorough but slightly lengthy. However, it is well-structured, front-loaded with core purpose, and every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but still effective.
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, the description explains the nature of returned data (catalog metadata, FNI-ranked) and error behavior. Does not detail exact structure, but sufficient for agent to reason about usage.
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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds context for the query parameter (natural language) and the limit parameter (max 20) beyond enum and defaults. Provides enough additional 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 identifies the tool as performing keyword discovery over the Free2AITools catalog, returning catalog metadata. It distinguishes from siblings like free2aitools_select_model and explicitly lists what it does and does not do.
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 states when to use ('discover which AI entities exist for a topic or keyword') and when not to use (general web search, running models, etc.). Suggests alternative free2aitools_select_model for specific constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
free2aitools_select_modelAInspectFilter 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) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only, no side effects, FNI-ranked non-paid, no billing. Acknowledges heuristic/metadata filtering limitations ('does not verify actual compatibility'). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or error behavior, but constraints are well-covered.
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?
Description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by limitations and alternatives. Only three sentences with no filler. Could slightly reduce redundancy (e.g., repeated 'heuristic'), but overall 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 full schema coverage (4 params, 1 required) and no output schema, description covers tool behavior, result ranking, and parameter explanation. Could benefit from brief mention of return structure (e.g., array of model entries), but the 'explain' parameter hints at per-entry summaries. 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 is 3. Description adds value by explaining that constraints are metadata/heuristic filters, not verified runtime checks. Also notes that results are FNI-ranked and includes explanation parameter. Slightly above baseline due to clarifying context 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?
Description clearly states the tool filters catalog by metadata/constraints and returns FNI-ranked candidates. It distinguishes from siblings: unconstrained search (free2aitools_search) and keyword ranking (free2aitools_rank). Specific verb 'filter' and resource 'Free2AITools catalog.'
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 states 'USE WHEN you have concrete constraints' and provides clear exclusions: not for inference, not a decision tool, not verified compatibility. Names alternative tools for different use cases. Complete guidance.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
