Melvea Local Honey Discovery
Server Details
Find local honey producers near a place or by varietal. Name, location, honey types, and website.
- 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 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one finds multiple producers based on location/variety, and the other retrieves a single producer by slug. There is no overlap or confusion.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun (snake_case) pattern: find_local_producers and get_producer. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the surface is very thin. While it may suffice for a niche directory, the count feels borderline low for a general-purpose server.
The server lacks basic operations like listing all producers without a location filter, searching by name, or any CRUD functionality. This represents significant gaps for a directory service.
Available Tools
2 toolsfind_local_producersARead-onlyInspect
Find local honey producers listed in the Melvea directory near a place, optionally filtered by honey variety. Returns nearby producers ranked by distance; per-result location precision is reported by pin_type (exact = street geocode, city, or coarser centroid) — it does NOT claim exact precision for every result. Each result also carries verification_status and verification_tier so callers can read standing (today all producers are listed/pending — none independently verified). Returns an explicit "no local producer found" when nothing matches — it never invents producers. Coverage varies by region and grows as the directory grows; pass coordinates as "lat,lon" to search anywhere, or GET the server info page for the regions currently covered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| near | Yes | A location: a point as "lat,lon" (e.g. "35.2271,-80.8431"), a ZIP/postal code, or a global place name ("Charlotte", "Charlotte, NC", "Auckland, NZ"). Ambiguous bare cities resolve to the most populous match and are flagged (resolved_confidence: low). | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 25). | |
| variety | No | Optional honey variety token, e.g. "sourwood", "tupelo", "wildflower". | |
| radius_km | No | Search radius in km (default 80). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond readOnlyHint annotation: explains pin_type precision, verification fields, that it returns 'no local producer found' instead of inventing results, and coverage varies. 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?
Description is reasonably concise given the amount of info. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter. Front-loaded with purpose.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description fully explains the output characteristics: sorting, precision, verification, and edge cases. Covers everything needed for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.
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 baseline is 3. Description does not add new parameter-level info beyond what the schema provides; it does give context for 'near' but that is also covered in schema. No extra 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?
Verbs 'find' with specific resource 'local honey producers', distinguishes from sibling 'get_producer' which presumably retrieves a single producer. No ambiguity.
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 the tool's purpose and usage (e.g., 'pass coordinates as "lat,lon"'), but does not explicitly say when not to use it or direct to the sibling for specific retrieval. Context is clear though.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_producerARead-onlyInspect
Get one producer's public profile by slug: name, location, declared varieties, populated contact channels, and the on-site melvea_url.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Producer slug, e.g. "cloister-honey". |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields (name, location, varieties, contact channels, melvea_url), but does not cover error responses or potential side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate.
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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs without 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?
For a simple read tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main outputs. It lacks details on error handling (e.g., what if slug not found) but is otherwise 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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description and example for the 'slug' parameter. The description adds no additional semantics for the parameter beyond restating its use.
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 producer's public profile by slug, listing specific fields (name, location, varieties, etc.). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'find_local_producers' which implies searching/filtering.
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 a slug is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling or provide when-not-to-use conditions. No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios.
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!