GlobalSource Partners MCP Server
Server Details
Search expert emerging-markets research on economics, politics, policy and sovereign risk.
- 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 4.6/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a unique and clearly defined purpose: author retrieval, post retrieval, entity search, and post search. There is no ambiguity or overlap between the operations.
All tool names follow a uniform pattern: verb_noun in snake_case (e.g., read_research_author, search_research_entities). This makes the tool set easy to parse and predict.
With 4 tools covering search and retrieval for research entities and posts, the count is well-scoped for the stated domain. There is no bloat or deficiency.
The tool set provides full read-only coverage: searching for entities and posts, then retrieving individual details. No obvious gaps exist for the server's apparent purpose.
Available Tools
4 toolsread_research_authorARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Read a single research author by author UUID.
Use this tool when a user wants profile details for a specific research author returned by another research tool.
The response includes author metadata, biography fields, profile URL, and visible sectors associated with the author.
Missing, inactive, non-author, and hidden-sector-only authors return a generic not-found error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| author_uuid | Yes | The stable UUID of the research author to read. Use an author_uuid returned by another research tool. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| author_name | Yes | The display name of the research author. |
| author_uuid | Yes | The stable UUID of the research author. |
| author_sectors | Yes | The visible sectors associated with this research author. |
| author_profile_url | Yes | The URL where this research author's profile can be viewed. |
| author_biography_html | Yes | The research author's biography as HTML, if available. |
| author_short_biography | Yes | A short biography or role summary for the research author, if available. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: response includes metadata, biography, profile URL, visible sectors; and error conditions for missing/inactive/non-author/hidden-sector authors. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences: purpose, usage context, and response/error behavior. No redundant words, well front-loaded.
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?
Tool is simple with one parameter and output schema. Description covers all necessary aspects: action, input, usage scenario, response, error conditions. Annotations provide safety profile. Complete.
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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by specifying that the UUID should come from another research tool, which clarifies the source of valid inputs.
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 'Read a single research author by author UUID,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it's for profile details of a specific author returned by other research tools, and the sibling tools are for reading posts 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 explicitly says when to use it: 'when a user wants profile details for a specific research author returned by another research tool.' It implies when not to use (e.g., for searching, use sibling tools) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives. Overall clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_research_postARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Read a single published research post by post UUID.
Use this tool after calling search_research_posts and selecting the most relevant result.
The response includes post metadata, authors, sectors, body HTML, and a URL. Depending on the authenticated MCP user's permissions, the body HTML and URL may expose either the full research post or teaser content.
Missing, unpublished, and hidden-sector posts return a generic not-found error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_uuid | Yes | The stable UUID of the research post to read. Use a post_uuid returned by search_research_posts. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| post_url | Yes | The URL where this research post can be viewed. This may be a full post URL or teaser URL depending on the MCP user's permissions. |
| post_type | Yes | The type of research post, e.g., 'Report', 'In Brief', 'Presentation', etc. |
| post_uuid | Yes | The stable UUID of the research post. |
| post_title | Yes | The title of the research post. |
| post_authors | Yes | The authors of this research post. |
| post_sectors | Yes | The sectors associated with this research post. Only clients who are permissioned for these sectors can access the full version of this post; other clients will receive teaser content. |
| post_updated | Yes | The most recent update timestamp of the research post in ISO 8601 format. |
| post_body_html | Yes | The HTML body available for this research post. This may be full post content or teaser content depending on the MCP user's permissions. |
| post_published | Yes | The publication timestamp of the research post in ISO 8601 format. |
| post_snippet_notice | Yes | A notice shown when the returned body contains only teaser or snippet content instead of the full research post. Null when the MCP user can view the full post. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: response may expose full or teaser content based on permissions, and edge cases (missing unpublished, hidden-sector) return generic errors. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.
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: three short paragraphs with front-loaded purpose, immediate usage guidance, and a concluding paragraph on response and edge cases. Every sentence 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 simple operation (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage flow, response content, permission-dependent behavior, and error cases. It is fully adequate for an agent to correctly 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for post_uuid. The description adds the guidance to use a UUID returned by search_research_posts, which enriches the parameter semantics 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 'Read a single published research post by post UUID', specifying the verb (read) and resource (research post). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like search_research_posts and read_research_author by indicating this tool is used after searching and selecting a post.
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 explicitly advises to use this tool after calling search_research_posts and selecting the most relevant result. It also implies when not to use (missing, unpublished, hidden posts return errors), but does not provide explicit alternatives for reading an author instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_research_entitiesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search research entities by name or approximate name.
Use this tool whenever a user refers to an entity by name and a research entity UUID is needed.
Results are ranked by match quality and include the research entity UUIDs required by other research tools.
When multiple results are returned, review the entity name, description, match type, match confidence, and available research count to determine the most appropriate entity before using its entity_uuid in another tool.
This tool only searches existing research entities and does not create or modify data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return. Minimum 1, maximum 50, default 10. | |
| query | Yes | The entity name or approximate entity reference to search for. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | The maximum number of matching research entities requested. |
| results | Yes | The matching research entities, ordered by match confidence. |
| queried_name | Yes | The normalized version of the query used to search for research entities. |
| total_results_count | Yes | The total number of matching research entities found before applying the result limit. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool only searches and does not create or modify data, aligning with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). It explains ranking and result contents (entity name, description, match type, confidence, research count), adding context beyond structured fields.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections. The main action is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose at 6 sentences; could be condensed slightly without losing 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?
Thoroughly explains how to use the tool and interpret results, including the importance of reviewing multiple matches and extracting UUIDs. With an output schema present, covering return values is unnecessary. The description is complete for the tool's 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 parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'by name or approximate name' clarifies query), but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 it searches research entities by name or approximate name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_research_author and search_research_posts. It specifies the primary verb and resource.
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 this tool: 'whenever a user refers to an entity by name and a research entity UUID is needed.' It also advises on handling multiple results, providing clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_research_postsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Search published research posts associated with one or more research entities.
This tool requires research entity UUIDs. If only entity names are known, first call search_research_entities to obtain candidate research entities and their UUIDs.
Use only entity_uuid values copied exactly from search_research_entities results. Never infer, guess, construct, or transform UUIDs from entity names.
Use this tool only after selecting the most appropriate research entity from the search_research_entities results.
Examples:
To find research about "United States", first call search_research_entities with "United States", review the returned matches, select the most appropriate entity, and then call this tool with the selected entity_uuid.
To find recent research about multiple entities, pass all selected entity_uuid values in research_entity_uuids.
To retrieve the next page of results, pass the previous response's next_cursor as cursor.
Results can be filtered by publication date and retrieved using cursor-based pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of posts to return. Minimum 1, maximum 50, default 25. | |
| order | No | Sort results by publication time. Use 'published_descending' for newest first or 'published_ascending' for oldest first. Default is published_descending. | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor returned by a previous response. Use this to retrieve the next page of results. | |
| published_after | No | Only return posts published after this date and time (ISO 8601 format). | |
| published_before | No | Only return posts published before this date and time (ISO 8601 format). | |
| count_total_results | No | Whether to include the total number of matching posts. Use false unless the total count is specifically needed. Calculating the total count may increase response time for large result sets. | |
| research_entity_uuids | Yes | One or more research entity UUIDs to search against. This field is required. At least one research entity UUID must be supplied. Do not pass entity names. If the user provides entity names rather than UUIDs, first call the "search_research_entities" tool and use the returned UUIDs from that tool. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| limit | Yes | The maximum number of research posts requested. |
| order | Yes | The sort order applied to the results. |
| results | Yes | The research posts matching the supplied research entities and filters, ordered according to the requested sort order. |
| next_cursor | Yes | An opaque pagination cursor. Supply this value in a subsequent request to retrieve the next page of results. Clients should not attempt to interpret or modify the cursor value. If this field is null, there are no additional pages of results. |
| published_after | Yes | The effective lower publication timestamp used for the search. If no lower publication date filter was supplied, this defaults to the earliest date from which research is available. |
| published_before | Yes | The effective upper publication timestamp used for the search. If no upper publication date filter was supplied, this defaults to the current date and time. |
| research_entities | Yes | The research entities used to filter the search results. |
| total_results_count | Yes | The total number of matching research posts before pagination was applied. Returned only when count_total_results was requested with true; otherwise null. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds procedural detail (requires UUIDs, cursor pagination, date filters) without contradicting annotations.
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?
Well-structured with clear sections, examples, and bullet points. No extraneous content; each sentence 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?
Covers prerequisites, pagination, filtering, and error prevention (do not guess UUIDs). Output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation.
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 the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the workflow for research_entity_uuids and providing performance context for count_total_results.
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 it searches published research posts associated with research entities. It specifies the need for UUIDs and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_research_entities, which is used for name resolution.
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 (after obtaining UUIDs) and when-not (if only names, call search_research_entities first). Includes examples, pagination guidance, and filtering options.
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!