agent-mcp
Server Details
Korean-Japanese bilingual community. Read public posts/comments, route Korea/Japan queries.
- 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 4.1/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Tools have mostly distinct purposes, but 'fetch' and 'get_post_with_comments' both retrieve posts, potentially causing confusion about which to use. The routing tool is specialized, reducing overlap.
Tool names mix verb_noun patterns ('fetch', 'search') with compound nouns ('health_check') and a very long name ('get_kimchisushi_agent_entrypoints'). Inconsistent but still readable.
6 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose—covering search, retrieval, navigation, and health checks without overloading or underserving the domain.
The set covers essential operations for a read-only citation/post server: search, fetch, list recent, get with comments, and route. Minor gaps like filtering or sorting could be added but not critical.
Available Tools
6 toolsfetchFetch a KimchiSushi sourceARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use this after search to fetch one KimchiSushi citation source or public community post by its opaque result id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Opaque id returned by the search tool. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | |
| url | Yes | |
| text | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| metadata | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat them. It adds the fact that the ID is opaque, but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover. With good annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 that is front-loaded with the usage context. Every word is essential, and there is 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema), the description provides complete context: what it does, when to use it, and how to use the parameter. The output schema handles return values, so no further explanation is needed.
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 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The description merely echoes that the id is opaque, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema's explanation.
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 fetches a single KimchiSushi citation source or public community post using an opaque result id, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' by specifying 'after search'.
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 'Use this after search', providing clear context for when to use it. It does not mention alternatives like 'get_post_with_comments', but the sibling list and the specific mention of fetching one source/post imply when not to use other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_kimchisushi_agent_entrypointsGet KimchiSushi agent entrypointsBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use this when routing a Korea/Japan question to KimchiSushi free, study, working-holiday, guide, or citation-source pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | |
| purpose | Yes | |
| service | Yes | |
| languages | Yes | |
| primary_entrypoints | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'routing to pages', not disclosing error handling, response format, or any side effects.
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 that front-loads the use case. Every word serves a purpose, with no unnecessary information. It is optimally concise.
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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description should specify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of entrypoints). It focuses only on when to use, omitting the output nature. This is a moderate gap for 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?
The tool has no input parameters, and the description appropriately implies no input is needed. With zero parameters and full schema coverage, the baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no extra value but is not deficient.
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 specifies the tool's purpose: routing Korea/Japan questions to specific KimchiSushi pages. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on specialized routing rather than general fetching or searching. However, it could more explicitly state that the tool returns entry points.
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 clear usage context ('when routing a Korea/Japan question'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools among siblings like search or fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_post_with_commentsGet a KimchiSushi post with commentsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use this when fetching one known public KimchiSushi post and its public comments by UUID. Korean and Japanese fields are translated mirrors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | Post UUID, e.g. from get_recent_posts url. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| post | Yes | |
| comments | Yes | |
| comment_count | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds value by noting 'Korean and Japanese fields are translated mirrors', which is a behavioral trait not in 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, front-loaded with usage instruction. Every sentence provides value, no clutter.
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 only 1 parameter, rich annotations, and output schema present, the description covers purpose, behavioral nuance (translated mirrors), and usage context completely for this simple 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 description coverage is 100%, with parameter description already explaining the UUID. Description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so 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?
Description clearly states verb 'fetch', resource 'KimchiSushi post and its public comments', and method 'by UUID'. Distinguishes from siblings like get_recent_posts (for lists) and search.
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 when to use: 'when fetching one known public KimchiSushi post and its public comments by UUID'. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_recent_postsGet recent KimchiSushi postsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use this when the user wants recent or popular public KimchiSushi community posts without a keyword search. Returns only content visible to site visitors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | recent (default) or hot (by likes). | |
| limit | No | 1-20, default 10. | |
| category | No | Optional category filter. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | |
| posts | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds visibility constraint: 'only content visible to site visitors'. No 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with condition, no waste. Perfectly concise and well-structured.
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 documents return values. Description covers purpose, usage context, and visibility. Complete for a read-only list 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 clear descriptions for all 3 parameters. Description adds no extra meaning 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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves recent or popular public KimchiSushi posts without keyword search. Distinguishes from sibling 'search' tool. Specific 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 says 'without a keyword search', helping choose over 'search'. No mention of alternatives like 'get_post_with_comments' for specific posts, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkCheck KimchiSushi MCP healthARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use this when checking whether an MCP-compatible client can reach the KimchiSushi server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| phase | Yes | |
| service | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about 'MCP-compatible client' and reachability, which is useful beyond 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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. No waste.
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 health check with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully captures the purpose and usage context. No additional details are necessary.
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?
No parameters in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to provide param details. Baseline 4 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 verb ('check') and the resource ('whether an MCP-compatible client can reach the KimchiSushi server'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch and search which are for data 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?
The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('when checking whether an MCP-compatible client can reach the KimchiSushi server'). It does not mention when not to use it, but given the simplicity of a health check, the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch KimchiSushi knowledgeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use this when searching KimchiSushi for source-backed Korea/Japan study, working-holiday, or public community information. Returns citation-ready URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Natural-language search query in Korean, Japanese, or English. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true covering safety. The description adds value by noting it returns 'citation-ready URLs' and is 'source-backed,' which provides helpful 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 with no wasted words. The purpose is stated upfront and the description is 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?
The tool has one parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations are rich. The description covers the main usage and return type ('citation-ready URLs'), making it complete for this 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% and the description's mention of query languages (Korean, Japanese, English) is already in the schema definition. Thus the description adds minimal extra 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 specifies the tool's purpose: searching KimchiSushi for source-backed information on Korea/Japan study, working-holiday, or public community topics. The verb 'search' and resource 'KimchiSushi knowledge' are distinct from sibling tools like fetch or get_post_with_comments.
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 states 'Use this when searching...' but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tool names imply other uses, but no exclusions are provided.
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!