Read released episodes, transcripts, citations, clips, reading trails, and flashcards.
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 3.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
Each tool targets a distinct resource: clip, episode, flashcards, reading trail, transcript segment, and episode clips. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_clip, get_episode, list_episode_clips).
6 tools is appropriate for the scope of a content retrieval server covering episodes, clips, transcripts, flashcards, and reading trails.
The tool set is read-only with no create/update/delete operations. Notably missing a list_episodes tool, which limits basic browsing.
get_clipGet ClipAGet one clip by ID with its URL, transcript, media, and publication details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes | |
| operation | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the returned content (URL, transcript, media, publication details), which is not in annotations. 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?
The description is a single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the primary action and return content. No extraneous 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?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key return fields and purpose. It does not mention error scenarios or where to obtain the ID, but these are minor gaps given 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'id'. The tool description only says 'by ID', adding minimal meaning. The agent could infer the ID is a string but gets no guidance on format, origin, or validation beyond the schema's pattern and maxLength.
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 retrieves a single clip by ID, listing specific return fields (URL, transcript, media, publication details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_episode_clips (which lists multiple clips) and get_episode (different 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?
The description implies usage when you have a specific clip ID and need its full details. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context makes it clear compared to siblings. Some explicit guidance would improve it, but it's sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_episodeGet EpisodeBGet one episode and its chapter metadata by slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes | |
| operation | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds little beyond 'by slug', failing to disclose edge cases like invalid slugs, rate limits, or whether the result can be empty. It relies entirely on annotations for safety profile.
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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes key detail about chapter metadata. Every word earns its place.
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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present, clear annotations), the description is nearly complete. It specifies the return includes chapter metadata, which is helpful. However, it could briefly mention that the tool is idempotent or that slug must be unique per episode for full contextual completeness.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the slug parameter. It only mentions 'by slug' without defining what a slug is, how to construct it, or its relationship to the episode. The regex pattern and max length are in the schema, but the description adds no semantic value.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'episode' along with the specific detail 'its chapter metadata'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_clip or get_flashcards by specifying that it retrieves an episode, not a clip or other entity.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It lacks information about prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context for choosing this tool over alternatives like get_clip or list_episode_clips.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_flashcardsGet FlashcardsAGet reviewed, evidence-linked episode flashcards with bounded cursor pagination. No scoring or engagement coercion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes | |
| operation | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: bounded cursor pagination, and that flashcards are 'reviewed' and 'evidence-linked'. 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?
Two concise sentences with front-loaded key information. No redundant phrases. Every word 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?
With an output schema present, description need not detail return values. However, given the low parameter coverage, some additional explanation of the required 'slug' parameter would improve completeness. Nonetheless, the description together with annotations and schema provides adequate context for an agent.
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?
Input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'bounded cursor pagination' but does not explain the required 'slug' parameter or the semantics of 'limit' and 'cursor'. Compensation for low coverage is insufficient.
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 'Get reviewed, evidence-linked episode flashcards' with specific verb and resource. Qualifiers like 'reviewed' and 'evidence-linked' distinguish it from sibling tools like get_clip or get_episode.
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?
Description includes a usage caveat ('No scoring or engagement coercion') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_clip or get_episode. The context is implied by the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_reading_trailGet Reading TrailBGet an episode reading trail with citations and cursor pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes | |
| operation | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context about citations and pagination, which is helpful beyond 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. Very concise, but could benefit from brief parameter or usage hints.
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?
With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. Even though output schema exists, parameter semantics are missing 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?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description does not explain any of the three parameters (slug, limit, cursor) beyond hinting at cursor pagination.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Get' and specific resource 'episode reading trail' with features 'citations and cursor pagination'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_episode or get_clip.
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 vs alternatives. Does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_transcript_segmentGet Transcript SegmentCGet transcript turns overlapping an optional window of at most five minutes, with exact timestamps. Defaults to 00:00–03:00 so the first call stays within the response limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_ms | No | ||
| episode | Yes | ||
| start_ms | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes | |
| operation | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds that the window is at most five minutes, defaults to 00:00-03:00, and returns exact timestamps. This provides behavioral context beyond 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?
Two sentences, short but the first sentence is grammatically awkward. Could be more direct. No critical information is missing, but structure could be improved.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not explain what 'turns' means, how the window is specified, or the response limit. For a tool with 0% parameter coverage and 3 params, the description is incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions an 'optional window' but does not name or explain start_ms/end_ms or the episode parameter. The max window length hint is helpful but insufficient.
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 states it retrieves transcript turns within a time window with timestamps, but the phrasing 'overlapping an optional window' is awkward and unclear. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_clip or get_episode, but the tool name implies segment retrieval.
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?
Only mentions default window and response limits. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or constraints for the episode parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_episode_clipsList Episode ClipsCList clips for an episode, including citations, media details, and publication state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes | |
| operation | Yes | |
| schema_version | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds contextual detail about included output fields (citations, media details, publication state), but does not disclose the behavioral nuance that limit is effectively always 1, affecting how pagination works.
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 single sentence is front-loaded but omits critical parameter information. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters needing explanation.
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 parameter descriptions and the existence of an output schema, the description still leaves significant gaps about how to use the tool effectively. The output schema covers return values, but input handling is unexplained.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not. No mention of slug (required identifier), limit (though fixed to 1), or cursor (pagiantion token). The description only covers output, not input 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 action ('list clips') and the resource ('for an episode'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_clip (single clip) and get_episode (episode metadata). However, it implies multiple clips are returned at once, but the limit parameter is fixed to 1, which is a minor inaccuracy.
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., get_clip for a specific clip). No mention of prerequisites or use cases beyond the basic listing function.
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!