PPN Hub — public APIs over MCP
Server Details
One MCP endpoint over 75 public PPN APIs: search_apis to discover, execute_api to call. Free tier.
- 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 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_apis for discovery, execute_api for executing any API request, and environment_brief for a specific aggregated output. There is no overlap.
Names are lowercase with underscores, and two follow a verb_noun pattern (execute_api, search_apis). environment_brief deviates slightly as noun+noun but remains consistent in style.
With 75 APIs and 484 endpoints, 3 tools is minimal, but they serve as a thin wrapper for discovery, execution, and a convenience function. The count is borderline but arguably appropriate for a meta-interface.
The tools cover the core workflow (discover, execute, and a specialized convenience). Minor gaps exist, such as no batch operations or full API spec retrieval, but the surface is functional for its stated purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolsenvironment_briefAInspect
Environmental brief for one location: fans out to every public geo-aware API (weather, terrain, environment, …) and returns a merged JSON. Partial results come back with an errors[] list. Requires 'Authorization: Bearer ppn_live_*'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lat | Yes | Latitude | |
| lon | Yes | Longitude | |
| place | No | Optional human-readable place label (echoed back) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Covers auth requirement, partial results with errors[], and aggregation behavior. Missing details on rate limits, latency, or scope of data. No annotations to supplement.
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?
Three sentences with essential information front-loaded. No redundant 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?
Covers inputs, auth, and output format (merged JSON, errors[]). Lacks output schema but description adequately hints at structure. Good for a complex aggregation 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 already documents all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds little new meaning beyond reinforcing 'for one location'.
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 ('Environmental brief') and resource ('one location') with specifics ('fans out to every public geo-aware API'). Distinguishes from siblings (execute_api, search_apis) by unique aggregation purpose.
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?
Implied usage for getting environmental data for a specific location, and requires a specific auth token, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternative tools or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
execute_apiAInspect
Execute a request against any of the 75 registered APIs. Use search_apis first to find the correct api name and operationId. Requires 'Authorization: Bearer ppn_live_*'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api | Yes | API name: artia, craftia, festivia, marketo, atmos, chronomap, earth-geodata, hydros, lithos, terra, carbon-credit, cost-compare, demand-forecast, grid-connect, site-matching, storage-optimize, tariff-optimize, transmission-loss, carbonias, laboria, planetary, green-path-api, biomassia, gasturbia, geothermia, hydria, reactoria, renewio, solaria, windaria-api, hydrogen, sla-viewer-production, nanobase-api, nanobase-console, nanosnap-auction-production, nanosnap-console, nanosnap-gacha-production, nanosnap-inventory-production, nanosnap-leaderboard-production, nanosnap-mailbox-production, nanosnap-persona-gateway-production, nanosnap-presence-production, nanosnap-replay-production, nanosnap-room-production, nanosnap-save-data-production, nanosnap-spatial-message-production, nanosnap-world-counter-production, nanosnap-world-objects-production, biositia, biota, cryonia, faunaunify, insectunify, literatia, mineral, plantunify, ppn-hub-workers, amenity-production, onokoro, sakurahub-address, sakurahub-gateway, sakurahub-web, weathio, biolexia-production, science-climate, science-ecology, science-geology, biocolo, crime, disease, noise, traffic, celestora, orbitalio, perks | |
| body | No | Request body for POST/PUT/PATCH | |
| params | No | Query and path parameters as key-value pairs | |
| operationId | Yes | operationId from search_apis results |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses auth requirement but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or error handling; no annotations provided so description partially carries burden.
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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose; no unnecessary wording.
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?
Lacks explanation of return values or error behavior; no output schema and 4 params with nested objects warrant more detail.
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 schema descriptions are adequate; description adds no additional parameter insight.
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 'Execute a request against any of the 75 registered APIs' and mentions prerequisite search_apis, distinguishing it from siblings.
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 use search_apis first to find correct api name and operationId, and specifies required Authorization header.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_apisAInspect
Search across 484 endpoints in 75 APIs (cultural, earth, energy-calc, esg, green-path, harmonias, hydrogen, internal, nanosnap, natura, platform, sakurahub, science, sim, social, space, stocks). Returns matching endpoints with method, path, summary, parameters, and a ready-to-run example. Use this to discover available API endpoints before calling execute_api.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by OpenAPI tag | |
| limit | No | Max results (default: 20) | |
| query | Yes | Search term (matches operationId, summary, description, path, API name, tags; synonyms expanded) | |
| domain | No | Filter by domain: cultural, earth, energy-calc, esg, green-path, harmonias, hydrogen, internal, nanosnap, natura, platform, sakurahub, science, sim, social, space, stocks | |
| method | No | Filter by HTTP method |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description must carry burden. It mentions 'synonyms expanded' for query but does not disclose if tool is read-only, has side effects, or behavior on empty results. Adequate but could be more transparent.
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 concise sentences, front-loading key information (scope, return details, use case). 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 search tool with no output schema, description covers what is returned and includes a ready-to-run example. Could mention pagination or default limit behavior, but limit parameter covers that.
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 parameters are well-described in schema. Description adds minimal extra value (synonyms expanded), 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 it searches across 484 endpoints in 75 APIs and returns matching endpoints with details like method, path, summary, etc. It also distinguishes it from sibling tool 'execute_api' by advising to use it before calling that tool.
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 'Use this to discover available API endpoints before calling execute_api', providing clear context for when to use this tool. No guidance on when not to use or alternatives, but sibling set is small and this is sufficient.
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!