Read-only, source-backed compatibility lookups and approved changes for ResolveMesh's catalog.
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 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides a paginated list of approved compatibility events, the other gives a specific lookup for a client-tool pair. No overlap.
Both tool names follow the consistent pattern 'compatibility_<verb>', using snake_case. 'changes' and 'lookup' are verbs that clearly indicate their actions.
With only 2 tools, the surface is minimal but appropriate for a niche domain like 'ResolveMesh Compatibility Intelligence'. It slightly underrepresents possible operations but remains reasonable.
The set covers key operations: retrieving recent changes and performing a single lookup. Minor gaps exist, such as bulk lookup or listing all supported pairs, but they are not critical for the core functionality.
compatibility_changesList approved compatibility changesAReturn cursor-paginated, approved ResolveMesh compatibility events using the same allowlisted filters as the public JSON API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| client | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| severity | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description must add behavioral context. It adds that the result is cursor-paginated and uses allowlisted filters, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements. Consistent 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence front-loads key attributes (cursor-pagination, approved, filters) with no wasted words. Succinct 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?
Despite having 6 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how pagination works, what the filters do individually, or what the return format looks like. For a moderately complex tool, this leaves significant gaps for the 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for all 6 parameters. It mentions 'allowlisted filters' and 'cursor-paginated', which vaguely covers some parameters, but most (tool, limit, since, client, severity) are left unexplained. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema's enum values and constraints.
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?
Title and description clearly state the tool lists approved compatibility changes with cursor-pagination. The phrase 'approved ResolveMesh compatibility events' and reference to the public JSON API distinctively set it apart from the sibling 'compatibility_lookup', which likely serves a different lookup 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?
The description implies this tool is for listing approved events with specific filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tool 'compatibility_lookup'. No guidance on prerequisites or context where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compatibility_lookupLook up client and tool compatibilityAReturn the source-backed ResolveMesh compatibility result for one allowlisted client and hosted-tool pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | ||
| client | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: 'source-backed' implies data provenance, and 'allowlisted' suggests access restrictions. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope. No wasted words; every part 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 two simple enum parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the essential inputs and purpose. It adds 'source-backed' and 'allowlisted' context. Could briefly mention return format, but overall adequate for the simplicity.
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 0%, but both parameters are enums with self-explanatory values (e.g., 'github', 'chatgpt-web'). The description confirms 'allowlisted client' and 'hosted-tool pair', adding little beyond what the enums convey. 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 states 'Return the source-backed ResolveMesh compatibility result for one allowlisted client and hosted-tool pair.' It uses a specific verb ('Return'), names the resource ('ResolveMesh compatibility result'), and clearly scopes to a single pair, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'compatibility_changes'.
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 for a single client-tool pair but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compatibility_changes'. No when-not-to-use or additional context about prerequisites is provided.
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!
