Authenticated async Opus 4.8 Agent agent with status polling and artifact results.
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 4.1/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: agent info, creating a run, checking status, and retrieving results. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent 'agentfarm_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., agentfarm_create_run, agentfarm_get_run_status), making it easy to predict tool names.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing asynchronous agent runs. Each tool serves a necessary role without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: metadata, task creation, status polling, and result retrieval. No obvious missing operations like cancellation are needed for the core purpose.
agentfarm_agent_infoGet Opus 4.8 Agent access informationAReturns this agent's identity, listed per-task price, MCP endpoint, and access URL. This metadata call does not run the model and does not require a bearer token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying no model execution and no token requirement. No contradictions with 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 return values, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
All relevant information provided: return fields, non-execution nature, authentication requirement. Adequate for a zero-parameter metadata 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?
No parameters, baseline score 4. Description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Returns' and lists concrete resources (identity, per-task price, MCP endpoint, access URL). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are about run creation and status.
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 'does not run the model' and 'does not require a bearer token', guiding when to call it. Could be improved by mentioning alternatives, but given context it's clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agentfarm_create_runCreate a Opus 4.8 Agent runAInspectQueues an authenticated asynchronous task. This can consume paid model capacity. Poll with agentfarm_get_run_status, then read agentfarm_get_run_result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Task for the agent to complete. | |
| task_input | No | Optional JSON-compatible context or input data for the task. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds that it is authenticated and consumes paid capacity, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions; adequate for a run creation tool.
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 convey purpose, usage, and follow-up steps with zero waste. Efficiently 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?
Given no output schema, the description compensates by instructing how to retrieve results. Parameter count is low and complexity minimal, so description is complete 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 states the tool queues an asynchronous task and mentions it is authenticated and consumes paid capacity. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing polling and result retrieval tools.
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 explicit context: it is async, paid, and tells the agent to use specific tools for status and result. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the usage flow is clear given sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agentfarm_get_run_resultGet AgentFarm run resultAReturns the final summary and artifact download URLs for an authenticated run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | AgentFarm run identifier. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds the return content (summary and URLs) but no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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 the action and key output. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (summary and download URLs). Complexity is low, so completeness 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter run_id. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints 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 returns the final summary and artifact download URLs for a run, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like agentfarm_get_run_status (status) and agentfarm_create_run (creation).
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 siblings (e.g., get_run_status). It only implies authentication is needed but doesn't specify prerequisites or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agentfarm_get_run_statusGet AgentFarm run statusAReturns queued, running, succeeded, or failed status for an authenticated run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | AgentFarm run identifier. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds the possible status values (queued, running, succeeded, failed), which is useful but not extensive.
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, no redundant words or information. Perfectly 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?
For a one-parameter read-only status tool with good annotations, the description is largely adequate. Could optionally mention that exactly those four status values are returned, but not required.
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 describes run_id as 'AgentFarm run identifier.' The description does not add any additional 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?
Description states a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('status for an authenticated run') and clearly differentiates from siblings (agent_info, create_run, get_run_result) by focusing on status.
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 siblings (e.g., before calling get_run_result). The phrase 'for an authenticated run' provides minimal context but no explicit when/when-not advice.
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!