Sourced answers about 6,255 industry certifications: issuer, occupations, programs, provenance.
Scored across 7 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and the descriptions carefully separate occupation-keyed, program-keyed, and certification-keyed lookups. The only mild ambiguity is between certifications_for_occupation and related_certifications, since both surface certifications tied to an occupation, but their entry points and semantics are explained.
The dominant pattern is noun_for_noun (certifications_for_occupation, certifications_for_program, occupations_for_certification), with get_, list_, and search_ used for generic access points. related_certifications is a slight deviation but still readable and predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a certification and occupation cross-reference server. Each tool covers a distinct lookup or navigation need without redundancy or unnecessary breadth.
The surface covers the core domain well: occupation-to-certification, certification-to-occupation, program-to-certification, certification details, issuers, and prose-name search. Minor gaps exist, such as no issuer-scoped certification listing or reverse program lookup, but they are not critical to the server's apparent purpose.
What certifications serve this occupation? SOC-keyed lookup (dashed SOC accepted with or without the O*NET .00 suffix).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| soc | Yes | SOC code, e.g. 13-2061 or 13-2061.00 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that input is a dashed SOC code with optional O*NET .00 suffix, which is useful input-format behavior. However, it does not describe the output shape, error handling, or whether unknown occupations return empty results, leaving some ambiguity.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and includes the key input constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool returns (certifications for an occupation), identifies the key, and specifies accepted input formats. It could slightly improve by clarifying the return structure, but the core context is sufficient.
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 schema already documents the soc parameter with examples. The description reinforces the accepted formats but adds little meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?
The description states the tool's purpose as a lookup of certifications for a given occupation, with a clear resource (certifications) and key (SOC). It differentiates from siblings like certifications_for_program and occupations_for_certification by specifying the SOC-keyed nature of the lookup.
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 clearly indicates this tool is for occupation-based certification lookups keyed by SOC code, and specifies accepted input formats. It does not explicitly mention when to use sibling tools, but the SOC-keyed framing and sibling names make the appropriate context reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Broad academic cross-reference by instructional program (CIP). A deliberately broader, lower-precision question than an occupation lookup — never its peer (contract § 4).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cip | Yes | Dotted CIP code, e.g. 52.0201 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful caveat that results are deliberately broader and lower-precision, and that the tool is not a peer to occupation lookup. It does not describe return shape, pagination, or side effects, but as a read-style lookup the precision caveat is a useful behavioral signal.
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-loading the CIP basis before the occupation-lookup contrast. The 'contract § 4' reference is cryptic but does not add much bulk; overall the description is economical and scannable.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, the description selects and routes the agent reasonably well. However, it omits the explicit return type and relies on a contract reference the agent may not have access to, leaving a modest completeness gap.
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 schema already documents `cip` with a format example and has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates CIP as 'instructional program' and adds no additional format, syntax, or constraint details 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?
Identifies the core operation as a cross-reference keyed to instructional program (CIP), which is a specific resource. It also distinguishes from occupation lookups, helping an agent separate it from `certifications_for_occupation`. However, it never explicitly states that it returns certifications for the program, relying partly on the tool name.
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?
States the intended case is broad academic/program-based reference and explicitly warns not to treat it as an occupation lookup. It does not name the sibling tool or list concrete when-not-to-use cases beyond the occupation contrast, but that contrast is the key routing decision for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Everything held about one certification: issuer and issuer domain, occupations served, exam and renewal requirements, education-or-experience routes, Credential Engine registry identity where held, and the basis and source URL for the claim.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The certification id (the table's unique key) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal useful context about the data provenance ('basis and source URL for the claim') and the conditional nature of registry identity ('where held'), but it does not describe error behavior, missing records, or the exact response shape.
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 one efficient sentence with a front-loaded subject and a compact list of covered fields. It avoids filler, though the long enumerative style is slightly dense and could be broken up for faster scanning.
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 no output schema, the description provides a solid account of what the returned record will contain, including issuer, occupations, requirements, routes, registry identity, and source attribution. It is adequate for an agent to predict the call's value, though minor behavioral details like not-found handling are absent.
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 sole parameter `id` is already described as the table's unique key. The description adds little beyond confirming that this id identifies a single certification, so the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 that the tool returns everything known about a single certification, enumerating the specific data domains covered. It is distinguishable from the list-oriented siblings by the 'one certification' framing, though it relies on an implied verb rather than an explicit one.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for getting a single certification record by id, as opposed to searching or listing certifications. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over search_certifications or related_certifications, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The issuing organizations, optionally filtered by a name query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional issuer-name filter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the result (issuing organizations) and optional filtering, which is adequate for a simple list operation, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, ordering, or potential absence of matches.
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 short and free of filler, with the core result and filter mentioned early. It is slightly awkward as a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, but it is appropriately compact.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the return concept and the filter. It could be stronger by explicitly stating it returns a list, but the tool name and context make that clear enough.
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% and the description's 'name query' matches the schema's 'Optional issuer-name filter'. The description adds no meaningful meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 resource as issuing organizations and states the optional name query filter. It is distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on certifications and occupations, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns'.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description only explains filtering behavior, not selection context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
What occupations does this certification serve?
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The certification id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it adds little beyond the tool name. It does not disclose whether it returns occupation IDs and/or names, whether results are paginated, or whether any authorization is required, though it does imply a read-only lookup.
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 concise sentence with no filler and is easy to scan. It loses a point for being a sentence-fragment question instead of an explicit action-oriented phrase, but the brevity is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.
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 one-parameter lookup, the description plus schema is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, because there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, some ambiguity remains about the exact return shape and how this differs from the inverse sibling.
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 sole id parameter already has a clear description ('The certification id'). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the schema baseline of 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource (a certification) and the focus (the occupations it serves), so an agent can infer it maps a certification to occupations. It is clear but phrased as a question rather than a directive, and it does not explicitly contrast with the inverse sibling certifications_for_occupation.
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 is given about when to select this tool over certifications_for_occupation or other siblings. The inverse direction is implied by the name, but the description does not state exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Which certification is this prose name? Returns candidates with ids, issuers, and source basis — candidates rather than a single guess when the name is ambiguous.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Optional maximum number of candidates | |
| query | Yes | Prose name, exam code, or issuer string to resolve | |
| issuer | No | Optional issuer name to narrow candidates |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently reveals that the tool returns candidates rather than a definitive single match when the name is ambiguous, and it lists what the candidates include. It does not cover pagination, ordering, or edge-case behavior, but for a read-only search tool the key ambiguity behavior is disclosed.
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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the user-facing question, states the return contents, and explains the candidate-based behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 no output schema, the description does enough to convey what the tool returns: candidate IDs, issuers, and source basis, plus the ambiguity-aware behavior. It is slightly light on operational details like empty results or limit handling, but the core usage and response semantics are covered well.
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 applies: all three parameters are already documented accurately in the schema. The description reinforces that the query is a prose name but does not add new per-parameter meaning 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 the tool's behavior: resolving a prose certification name into candidate certifications with IDs, issuers, and source basis. This distinguishes it from siblings like certifications_for_occupation or get_certification, which address different lookup paths.
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 opening question 'Which certification is this prose name?' establishes a clear use case, and the schema further specifies the query can be an exam code or issuer string. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_certification for exact ID lookups, so exclusion guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
certifications_for_occupationcertifications_for_programget_certificationlist_issuersoccupations_for_certificationrelated_certificationssearch_certificationsClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity – fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge – works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge – works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Search 1,580 certification exam blueprints: domains, scoring, prerequisites, compare. No API key.
Practice questions, exam facts & study guides for professional certification exams.
Registry of attested business fact passports (A0-A4): verified answers, honest refusals.
Entity intelligence across AI surfaces. Read the verified record and submit corrections.
