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 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. Cold upper-range multi-paper requests may return a transient 503 (retry after the indicated delay). 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 (2-25). 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?
Declares read-only, no side effects, and potential 503 for cold requests, which is critical behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations (none provided).
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?
Concise 3-sentence description with clear front-loading of 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?
Completely covers what the tool does, when to use, what output includes, and potential errors, despite 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?
Adds significant meaning beyond schema: specifies how to obtain IDs (from select_model or search), gives example format, and clarifies constraints (2-25 items).
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 models side-by-side with specific metrics (FNI scores, factor breakdown, etc.), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like free2aitools_select_model.
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 guidance: use when deciding between specific known models, use free2aitools_select_model for discovery first, and mentions transient 503 error and retry behavior.
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 provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. It also discloses the formula and factors, giving insight into how the score is calculated. However, it does not discuss error handling or data freshness, but overall is transparent.
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 with high information density. The first sentence defines the tool's primary function and output. The second provides usage context and sibling differentiation. No unnecessary 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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the five factors and their weights, effectively describing the return content. The tool has one simple parameter, and the description fully covers its purpose and behavior.
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 one parameter 'id'. The description adds meaning by providing a concrete example (e.g., 'Llama-3', 'hf-model--meta-llama--llama-3-8b'), which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic 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 explains FNI ranking scores with a specific 5-factor breakdown (Semantic, Authority, Popularity, Recency, Quality). It uses a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('FNI ranking score'), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'free2aitools_compare'.
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 guides when to use: 'after search or rank to understand why an entity scored high or low' and directs to an alternative: 'use free2aitools_compare instead for side-by-side differences between multiple entities'. This is clear and actionable.
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 text as query input. Returns FNI-ranked catalog entries. Does not perform task-fit recommendation or compatibility analysis. 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 keyword-based 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?
Despite no annotations, description discloses read-only, no side effects, potential transient 503, and retry guidance. This covers key behavioral aspects for safe invocation.
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?
Concise five-sentence structure with logical flow: purpose, output, exclusions, error handling, alternatives. No redundant information.
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, it covers purpose, behavior, error conditions, and alternatives. The omission of return format details is acceptable; context is sufficient for agent decision.
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 description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between 'query' (required) and 'task' (optional) for combined ranking, beyond the 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 explicitly states it's a keyword-search that returns FNI-ranked catalog entries, and distinguishes itself from task-fit recommendation. The verb 'rank' is paired with a specific resource and clarifies what it 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?
Provides clear alternatives: 'Use free2aitools_search for keyword-based discovery, or free2aitools_select_model to apply hardware/license metadata filters.' Also notes read-only nature and retry behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
free2aitools_searchAInspect
Search the Free2AITools catalog of AI models, datasets, papers, and tools 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. Search may return a retryable transient 503 under cold-path or fallback budget limits; retry according to Retry-After. 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 provided, but description fully discloses read-only nature, no side effects, ranking method (FNI), and potential transient errors with retry advice. Meets full burden of 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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value: purpose, ranking, read-only, error handling, sibling differentiation.
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 moderate complexity (search with filtering/ranking), complete schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how results are ranked, when to use alternatives, and error handling. No gaps.
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% (all parameters described in input schema). Description does not add significant detail beyond schema for parameters; mentions query but repeats schema info. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as description adds minimal extra value for 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 the Free2AITools catalog by keyword, lists result types (models, datasets, papers, tools), and explains the ranking factor (FNI). It distinguishes from sibling free2aitools_select_model by stating when to use each.
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 provides when to use ('broad discovery' vs. 'free2aitools_select_model for hardware/license constraints') and cautions about transient 503 errors with retry guidance. Comprehensive usage context.
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 metadata and return FNI-ranked entries. Constraints are metadata/heuristic filters, not verified compatibility analysis. The caller is responsible for final model selection. Read-only, no side effects. Use free2aitools_search for unconstrained keyword search, or free2aitools_rank for keyword-based 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?
The description explicitly states this is read-only with no side effects, and that constraints are heuristic (not verified), and that the caller is responsible for final selection. Although no annotations are provided, the description adequately 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 concise and well-structured, with the core action and key constraints front-loaded, 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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description mentions returning FNI-ranked entries and the explain parameter covers per-entry details. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and parameter context sufficiently for the complexity level.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about heuristic vs verified filters but does not add significant per-parameter meaning beyond the 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?
The description clearly states the tool filters the catalog by declared metadata and returns FNI-ranked entries, distinguishing it from siblings like free2aitools_search and free2aitools_rank.
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 tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: use free2aitools_search for unconstrained keyword search, or free2aitools_rank for keyword-based ranking without metadata filters. Also notes constraints are heuristic, not verified compatibility.
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!