agent-tools
Server Details
Run the Energy Leak Quiz, match biohacking gear, and build a longevity stack. Free, no API key.
- 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 3.6/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: recommending gear, building a longevity stack, subscribing to a list, and taking a quiz. No confusion possible.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (find_biohacking_gear, recommend_longevity_stack, subscribe_to_outliyr, take_energy_leak_quiz).
4 tools is well-scoped for the Outliyr domain, covering key user interactions without being too few or too many.
Covers core actions (recommend, subscribe, quiz) but lacks tools for user profile management or order placement, which are minor gaps.
Available Tools
4 toolsfind_biohacking_gearFind Biohacking GearAInspect
Recommend Outliyr biohacking gear for a user's ranked goals. Uses the live gear feed with a short timeout and falls back to the bundled product snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owned | Yes | Products, brands, or gear categories the user already owns. | |
| budget | Yes | Budget sensitivity for the gear stack. | |
| experience | Yes | How experienced the user is with biohacking gear. | |
| rankedGoals | Yes | Rank up to three outcomes the user wants from gear. | |
| avoidSubscriptions | Yes | Whether subscription-dependent products should be penalized. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behaviors: uses live gear feed with short timeout and falls back to bundled snapshot. No annotations exist, so description provides valuable behavioral context beyond name and title.
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 core purpose, efficient and no fluff. Every sentence 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?
Covers behavior but lacks output description. With no output schema, the description should hint at return format. Sibling tools provide context but not complete coverage.
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?
All 5 parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter relationships or formatting.
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 recommends Outliyr biohacking gear based on ranked goals, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like recommend_longevity_stack, which focuses on longevity stacks.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recommend_longevity_stack or take_energy_leak_quiz. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recommend_longevity_stackRecommend Longevity StackBInspect
Build a personalized Outliyr Longevity Stack using the same pure recommendation engine that powers the browser app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | Yes | Preferred supplement form. | |
| goals | Yes | Primary outcomes to optimize for. | |
| level | Yes | How advanced the user wants the stack to be. | |
| budget | Yes | Budget sensitivity for the stack. | |
| safety | No | Optional safety screen flags used by the engine. | |
| ageBand | Yes | Age band used for age-gated recommendations. | |
| evidenceAppetite | Yes | Evidence threshold for including recommendations. | |
| foundationsCovered | Yes | Foundation supplements already covered, such as magnesium, omega_3, creatine, vitamin_d_k2, multivitamin, all, or yes. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as how the engine uses inputs (e.g., safety flags), whether results are persisted, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a tool with nested parameters and no output schema.
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. It is appropriately front-loaded but could be slightly more structured (e.g., include a clear purpose statement before the engine mention). Overall, it is not verbose.
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 complexity (8 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the recommendation algorithm, output format, or how safety flags affect results, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'build' and the resource 'personalized Outliyr Longevity Stack', distinguishing it from sibling tools like finding gear or taking a quiz. It is specific and unambiguous.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance is provided. The context from sibling tools implies this is for stack recommendations, but the description does not directly state when to choose this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
subscribe_to_outliyrSubscribe To OutliyrBInspect
Subscribe the user to the Outliyr email list through the same WordPress capture contract used by the apps. Refuses unless consent is exactly true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email address to subscribe. | ||
| consent | Yes | Must be exactly true. The tool refuses when this is false or omitted. | |
| context | No | Optional result context from the tool call. Energy quiz answers can be included here. | |
| sourceToolKey | Yes | Outliyr tool that produced the recommendation or quiz result. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description must carry full burden. It does disclose that the tool refuses unless consent is exactly true, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., what happens on success/failure) or any authentication/permissions needed. The term 'WordPress capture contract' is jargon and not explained.
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 succinct sentences: first front-loads the main purpose, second adds a key condition. No unnecessary words; every sentence 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?
Given no output schema and a nested context parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, confirmation, or how to handle errors. It also fails to connect to sibling tools (e.g., use after quiz results). The description leaves a knowledgeable agent guessing about the result and subsequent steps.
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 detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the consent condition already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'subscribe' and the resource 'Outliyr email list', and specifies the method 'WordPress capture contract'. It distinguishes from siblings which are about finding gear, recommending stacks, and taking quizzes, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 only states the consent requirement but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after a quiz). No explicit context for when to invoke, and no mention of prerequisites or related workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
take_energy_leak_quizTake Energy Leak QuizAInspect
Score the user's Energy Leak quiz answers and return the winning leak plus the full 5-1-1 protocol. Answer all seven questions. q1: It's 3pm. What's your energy actually doing? Options: q1_flatlined = Flatlined. I'd nap at my desk if I could.; q1_wired_foggy = Wired but foggy, like too much coffee and no sleep.; q1_fumes = Running on fumes, and I have been for months.; q1_paid_later = Fine at 3, but I paid for it by 8. q2: Your mornings look like: Options: q2_screen_first = I'm on a screen before I'm on my feet.; q2_behind_tense = I wake up already behind, already tense.; q2_snooze = I hit snooze like it's a personality trait. Never feel rested.; q2_coffee_carb = Coffee, then a carb, then I'm "awake." q3: When do you feel the most like yourself? Options: q3_outside = Outside. The moment I'm in fresh air and sun.; q3_vacation = On vacation, away from my house and my desk.; q3_rest = The rare week I actually rest.; q3_stop_doing = When I stop doing so much, not when I add something. q4: Your relationship with your phone and Wi-Fi: Options: q4_phone_first_last = It's the last thing I touch at night, first thing I grab.; q4_router_bedroom = My router's on 24/7 and my bedroom's basically a server room.; q4_doomscroll = I doomscroll to relax and it never actually relaxes me.; q4_dont_think = Fine, I guess? I don't think about it. q5: How do you usually try to fix low energy? Options: q5_add_more = Add more, or cram more in. More coffee, more supplements, one more thing on the calendar.; q5_push_through = I push through. Rest feels like falling behind.; q5_quick_carby = Eat something. Usually something quick and carby.; q5_white_knuckle = I don't have a move. I just white-knuckle it. q6: Your sleep, in one line: Options: q6_tired_awake = I'm tired all day and wide awake at 11pm.; q6_not_recovered = I sleep, but I never wake up recovered.; q6_schedule_all_over = My schedule's all over the place.; q6_hot_restless_phone = I sleep hot / restless / near my phone. q7: Which hits closest? Options: q7_light_outdoors = "I feel disconnected from natural light and the outdoors."; q7_braced = "I can't downshift. I'm always a little braced."; q7_food_dependent = "My energy is unpredictable and food-dependent."; q7_everything_not_enough = "I'm doing everything and it's still not enough."
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q1 | Yes | It's 3pm. What's your energy actually doing? Options: q1_flatlined = Flatlined. I'd nap at my desk if I could.; q1_wired_foggy = Wired but foggy, like too much coffee and no sleep.; q1_fumes = Running on fumes, and I have been for months.; q1_paid_later = Fine at 3, but I paid for it by 8. | |
| q2 | Yes | Your mornings look like: Options: q2_screen_first = I'm on a screen before I'm on my feet.; q2_behind_tense = I wake up already behind, already tense.; q2_snooze = I hit snooze like it's a personality trait. Never feel rested.; q2_coffee_carb = Coffee, then a carb, then I'm "awake." | |
| q3 | Yes | When do you feel the most like yourself? Options: q3_outside = Outside. The moment I'm in fresh air and sun.; q3_vacation = On vacation, away from my house and my desk.; q3_rest = The rare week I actually rest.; q3_stop_doing = When I stop doing so much, not when I add something. | |
| q4 | Yes | Your relationship with your phone and Wi-Fi: Options: q4_phone_first_last = It's the last thing I touch at night, first thing I grab.; q4_router_bedroom = My router's on 24/7 and my bedroom's basically a server room.; q4_doomscroll = I doomscroll to relax and it never actually relaxes me.; q4_dont_think = Fine, I guess? I don't think about it. | |
| q5 | Yes | How do you usually try to fix low energy? Options: q5_add_more = Add more, or cram more in. More coffee, more supplements, one more thing on the calendar.; q5_push_through = I push through. Rest feels like falling behind.; q5_quick_carby = Eat something. Usually something quick and carby.; q5_white_knuckle = I don't have a move. I just white-knuckle it. | |
| q6 | Yes | Your sleep, in one line: Options: q6_tired_awake = I'm tired all day and wide awake at 11pm.; q6_not_recovered = I sleep, but I never wake up recovered.; q6_schedule_all_over = My schedule's all over the place.; q6_hot_restless_phone = I sleep hot / restless / near my phone. | |
| q7 | Yes | Which hits closest? Options: q7_light_outdoors = "I feel disconnected from natural light and the outdoors."; q7_braced = "I can't downshift. I'm always a little braced."; q7_food_dependent = "My energy is unpredictable and food-dependent."; q7_everything_not_enough = "I'm doing everything and it's still not enough." |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the main behavior: scoring answers and returning the winning leak plus the 5-1-1 protocol. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adequately describes the input-taking and output-returning behavior without 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 overly long because it duplicates the entire set of questions and options that already exist in the input schema. The first sentence is concise, but the rest is redundant, making the description verbose and less 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?
While the description states it returns 'the winning leak plus the full 5-1-1 protocol,' it does not specify the format or structure of the output. With no output schema, the description should provide more detail about what the agent can expect, such as whether it returns a string, object, or structured data.
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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description repeats the questions and options verbatim, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and description merely restates.
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 that the tool scores quiz answers and returns the winning leak and the full 5-1-1 protocol. The verb 'score' and resource 'Energy Leak quiz' make the action unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_biohacking_gear or recommend_longevity_stack.
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 instructs to 'Answer all seven questions,' providing direct guidance on how to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.
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!