F
license-
qualityB
maintenanceBridges Codex with MiMoCode as a coding agent for planning, implementation, and review via MCP tools.
hypathesis
by com.predme
Server Details
Variable relationships from research papers with causal direction and source traceback.
- 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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.8/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: two for authentication flow (initiate, check), one for status polling, one for retrieving results. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (initiate_device_auth, check_device_auth, get_analysis_status, get_variable_relationships), making them predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is well-scoped for a focused service handling authentication, status checking, and result retrieval without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness3/5
The tools cover auth and retrieval but lack an upload tool, requiring external action to start the workflow. This is a notable gap for a complete lifecycle.
Available Tools
4 toolscheck_device_authCheck Device AuthARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check if the user has completed browser sign-in for a device auth request.
Poll this after calling initiate_device_auth. Returns status 'pending'
while waiting, or 'complete' with an api_key when the user has signed in.
Use the returned api_key as the authorization parameter in other tools.
Args:
user_code: The user_code returned by initiate_device_auth.
Returns:
Pending: {"status": "pending"}
Complete: {"status": "complete", "api_key": "hk_..."}
Error: {"error": "..."}
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_code | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A5/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even with annotations indicating idempotent and read-only, the description adds critical context: the polling mechanism, possible return states (pending/complete/error), and the returned api_key usage. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with labeled sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description fully covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage sequence, parameter source, return types, and error handling. The output schema is documented inline, leaving no gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the sole parameter 'user_code' as 'The user_code returned by initiate_device_auth', adding essential context not present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Check if the user has completed browser sign-in') and clearly distinguishes this polling tool from the sibling 'initiate_device_auth' by stating it should be called after that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use ('Poll this after calling initiate_device_auth'), implying not to use before. This provides clear context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_analysis_statusGet Analysis StatusARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check the processing status of an uploaded paper.
Poll this tool after uploading a PDF until status is 'Ready' before
calling get_variable_relationships.
Args:
file_id: The file_id returned by the /upload endpoint.
authorization: Optional. API key as 'Bearer hk_...' or 'hk_...'.
Returns:
{
"status": "Processing" | "Ready" | "Empty" | "Ineligible" | "Pending",
"edges_count": int,
"variables_count": int
}
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | ||
| authorization | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate. It adds value by detailing the polling pattern and that authorization is optional, which supplements the safe read behavior. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a purpose sentence, usage instruction, argument list, and return format. Each section is concise and informative, with no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description explains return values comprehensively, including possible statuses and edge/variable counts. It also references the /upload endpoint and the next step, making it complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for both parameters: 'file_id' is from /upload endpoint, 'authorization' is optional with format hints. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks the processing status of an uploaded paper, specifying the verb 'Check' and the resource 'processing status of an uploaded paper'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_variable_relationships' by noting to poll until 'Ready' 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.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to poll after uploading PDF until status is 'Ready' before calling 'get_variable_relationships'. This provides clear when-to-use and sequential guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_variable_relationshipsGet Variable RelationshipsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Retrieve analyzed variable relationships for a completed paper.
Only returns results when get_analysis_status reports status='Ready'.
Without an API key (anonymous): returns the relationship list with
source, target, and direction — but detailed reasoning is available
only with an API key. Sign up at https://hypathesis.com to get one.
Args:
file_id: The file_id returned by the /upload endpoint.
authorization: Optional. API key as 'Bearer hk_...' or 'hk_...'.
Returns:
Authenticated: full details (source, target, directed, reason per
relationship; name, measure per variable).
Anonymous: gated (source, target, directed per relationship;
name per variable; sign_up_url for full access).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | ||
| authorization | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive), the description adds critical behavior: dependency on analysis readiness, and gated vs. full response based on API key. No contradiction 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with Args/Returns sections, but includes a marketing line ('Sign up at...') that slightly reduces conciseness. Still front-loaded and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and the tool has only 2 parameters, the description is complete. It covers usage conditions, auth differences, and return values succinctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: file_id sourced from upload endpoint, authorization as API key. This compensates for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves analyzed variable relationships for a completed paper. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing get_analysis_status and specifying usage conditions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: only when get_analysis_status reports status='Ready'. Also explains differences based on authentication, providing clear guidance on prerequisites and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
initiate_device_authInitiate Device AuthAInspect
Start a browser-based sign-in flow to get an API key for full access.
Call this when you need detailed analysis results (reasoning, measurements)
that require authentication. Returns a verification URL to show to the user.
After the user signs in, poll check_device_auth with the returned user_code
to get the API key.
Returns:
{
"verification_url": str,
"user_code": str,
"expires_in": 600,
"message": str
}
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return values (verification URL, user_code, expires_in, message) and that it starts a sign-in flow. Annotations are neutral; no mention of side effects like invalidating previous auths.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief: one sentence for purpose, two sentences for usage guidance, and a sample return. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no parameters and a clear output; description covers the flow and return format completely, including subsequent step to poll check_device_auth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in input schema, so description does not need to add meaning. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described by absence).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts a browser-based sign-in flow to get an API key for full access. It differentiates from sibling tools like check_device_auth (polling) and analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Call this when you need detailed analysis results that require authentication' and instructs to poll check_device_auth after user signs in.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for searching research grants across NSF (US), ERC (EU), and KRF/NRF (Korea) via a unified interface. NIH excluded—covered by existing connectors.311MIT
- Flicense-qualityBmaintenanceA multi-agent literature review pipeline that uses specialized agents to research, peer-review, and synthesize academic and practitioner perspectives into grounded reports.
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceMCP server for AI-assisted research: paper ingestion, semantic search, citation graph traversal, cross-domain knowledge synthesis, and workflow automation.MIT