Guías en español de PLC Siemens y TIA Portal: busca y lee +330 tutoriales (SCL, LADDER, AWL, HMI).
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 3.8/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
Every tool has a distinct purpose: author, purchase URL, category posts, course details, curriculum, latest posts, full post, categories list, course search, and post search. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_, list_, search_), making the tool surface predictable and easy to navigate.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a blog and course platform. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: author info, post retrieval (by category, latest, search, full content), categories, course details, curriculum, and purchase URL. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
get_authorSobre el instructorABio y credenciales del instructor Iñigo Gútiez.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, and description adds behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns 'bio y credenciales', which goes beyond the annotation.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words; every word earns its place.
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 simple purpose, description adequately covers what the tool returns. Missing details about return format but acceptable for a trivial getter.
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 exist, so description does not need to add meaning beyond schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 provides biography and credentials of the instructor Iñigo Gútiez, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_course or get_post.
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 alternative guidance; however, the purpose is self-explanatory as a simple getter for author info, so usage is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_buy_urlEnlace de compra de un cursoCURL de compra/landing de un curso.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug del curso |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation indicates a read operation, and the description adds that it returns a URL. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., whether the URL is dynamic, requires authentication, or includes tracking).
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 sentence, concise and to the point. While it is brief, it effectively communicates the core purpose 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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It could benefit from noting that the URL is for the course identified by slug, but the annotation fills in the read-only behavior.
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 one required slug parameter described as 'Slug del curso'. The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema, 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?
The description clearly states the tool returns the purchase/landing URL for a course, distinguishing it from siblings like get_course or search_courses that provide course details.
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 is given on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_course, search_courses) or prerequisites like needing a course slug. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_category_postsArtículos de una categoríaALista los artículos de una categoría del blog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug de la categoría | |
| limit | No | Máximo de resultados |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true; the description adds no extra behavioral details like ordering or pagination, beyond confirming it's a list operation.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence clearly communicates the purpose with no redundant information.
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 listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. Minor omission: no mention of result ordering or pagination limits beyond the 'limit' parameter.
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 the schema documents both parameters; the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions.
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 it lists articles of a category, distinguishing it from siblings like get_post (single article) and search_posts (search functionality).
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 use when needing posts by category, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_courseFicha de un cursoAFicha completa de un curso: descripción, precio, qué incluye.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug del curso, ej: 'curso-de-awl' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns specific fields (description, price, includes). This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though more detail on response size or latency would be helpful.
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 in Spanish, front-loading the key information. It is efficient but could be slightly more 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?
Without an output schema, the description hints at return fields but does not fully detail the structure. Given the tool's simplicity (1 param), it is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
With 100% schema coverage and a single well-described parameter ('slug'), the description adds no additional semantic value. The baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the complete profile of a course, including description, price, and what's included. This specific verb-resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_curriculum' or 'search_courses'.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied but lacks direct context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_curriculumTemario de un cursoATemario completo de un curso (módulos y lecciones). Sin contenido de pago.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug del curso |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output contains no paid content, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond 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?
The description is a single short sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and 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?
The tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return format, pagination (if any), or handling of missing courses. For a simple read tool, it is minimally adequate.
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 the parameter 'slug' described as 'Slug del curso'. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema 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 tool returns the full syllabus (modules and lessons) of a course, with a specific verb 'get' and resource 'curriculum'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_course (likely course metadata) and search_courses (search functionality).
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 when to use (to fetch syllabus) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Sibling names offer differentiation, but the description itself lacks guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_latest_postsÚltimos artículosALista los artículos más recientes del blog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Máximo de resultados (por defecto 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so safety is known. Description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., ordering, pagination). Adequate but no extra value beyond 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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, perfectly concise for a simple tool.
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?
Tool is simple with one optional param and read-only, but description lacks mention of ordering (e.g., by date) or what constitutes 'latest'. Minimally adequate but could be more complete.
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 the parameter 'limit' has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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 lists the latest blog posts, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_post (single) and search_posts (search).
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 vs alternatives. Does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. Context signals show many sibling tools but description lacks differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_postLeer un artículo completoBDevuelve el contenido completo de un artículo del blog por su slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug del post, ej: 'el-poder-del-scl' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it returns 'full content' but does not elaborate on what that includes or any other behavioral traits beyond the 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?
Single sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with purpose. 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?
The tool is simple but lacks output schema or details on response structure. The description 'full content' is vague; agent cannot infer what fields are returned. No mention of error handling.
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% and the description does not add additional meaning beyond what the parameter's schema already provides. Baseline of 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?
The description clearly states it returns the full content of a blog article by slug, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_author or get_latest_posts.
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 vs alternatives like search_posts or get_category_posts. The description implies use when you have a slug, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_categoriesCategorías del blogALista las categorías del blog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety. However, it adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., ordering, pagination), which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point.
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-only list with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about the return format or scope (e.g., all categories or filtered).
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly adds no param info, but since baseline for 0 params is 4, the score 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?
The description 'Lista las categorías del blog' clearly indicates the tool lists blog categories, matching the name and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_category_posts.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_category_posts for posts by category), nor any when-not scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_coursesBuscar cursosABusca cursos de Programación Siemens por tema (TIA Portal, SCL, AWL, WinCC, HMI...). Vacío = todos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Tema o palabra clave |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a search tool. The description adds the behavioral detail that an empty query returns all courses, which is beyond what annotations provide. 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?
The description is two short sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes essential information: the tool's purpose and a special behavior. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema or nested objects), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the parameter meaning, and a special case. No additional context is needed.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'query' with description 'Tema o palabra clave'. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of valid queries (e.g., TIA Portal, SCL) and explaining the behavior when empty, enhancing understanding.
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 it searches for Siemens Programming courses by topic, providing example topics like TIA Portal and SCL. The verb 'Busca' (search) is specific and distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_course or list_categories.
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 explains when to use the tool: when searching by topic. It also mentions the empty query returns all courses. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to siblings, though the sibling list implies alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_postsBuscar artículos del blogABusca artículos del blog de Programación Siemens por tema (TIA Portal, SCL, AWL, PROFINET, HMI, PLC Siemens...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Máximo de resultados (por defecto 10) | |
| query | Yes | Término de búsqueda |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read-only operation. The description adds context about searching by topic but does not mention any potential behavioral traits like result ordering or pagination (though limit is handled in schema). 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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. 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?
For a search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies what is searched (blog posts) and how (by topic). The absence of output details is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.
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 both parameters (query and limit) described. The description adds the nuance that query is a search term and limit controls max results, but this is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies as description adds only minimal extra 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 clearly states it searches blog posts on Siemens programming by topic, with specific examples. The title 'Buscar artículos del blog' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_post (single post) and search_courses (courses).
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 indicates it is used for searching by topic, with examples of topics. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the context of sibling tools and the description imply it's for generic topic searches, not for specific post retrieval or course searches.
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!