RoxyAPI Docs MCP Server (keyless, for coding agents)
Server Details
Keyless docs search so coding agents wire up RoxyAPI: every endpoint, param and SDK call.
- 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 4.6/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools.
With a single tool, the naming pattern is inherently consistent and follows a clear verb_noun convention.
A single search tool is typical for a documentation server, though slightly thin; it covers a wide range of topics through one interface.
The tool comprehensively covers endpoints, SDKs, authentication, UI components, and guides via search. Minor gap: no direct retrieval or listing of static documents, but search should suffice for most agent needs.
Available Tools
1 toolsearch_docsAInspect
Search the RoxyAPI knowledge base and get back ranked documentation snippets, each with a source URL. It covers API endpoints with their request and response fields, SDK usage for TypeScript, Python, PHP, C#, and the WordPress plugin, authentication and API keys, UI components, and step by step integration guides. Call this first whenever you need to integrate RoxyAPI into an app: to find which endpoint or SDK method to use, what parameters a call takes, how to authenticate, or how to wire a feature end to end. Pass the user question verbatim as query. If the first results miss, rephrase once and retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max hits to return. Default 10, capped at 25. | |
| query | Yes | User question or keywords. Free text. The whole question works better than guessed keywords. | |
| compact | No | Set true to receive the exact same data in a token-optimized shape that is cheaper for you to read: whitespace is stripped and every array of same-shaped objects is encoded columnar as {"__cols":[field names],"__rows":[[values]]}, so each field name is sent once instead of once per row. Fully lossless (no field or value is dropped or changed) and typically 40 to 52 percent fewer tokens on large results. Prefer true whenever token or inference cost matters. Default false returns standard indented JSON. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the behavior (ranked snippets with URLs), coverage areas, and the compact parameter's effect. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, though it is implied.
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 paragraph but well-structured: front-loads the core purpose, then usage context, then parameter guidance. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise regarding the compact parameter explanation.
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 siblings, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, coverage area, usage patterns, retry strategy, and parameter details, leaving no significant gaps.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'query' should be the user's verbatim question and hints at retry strategy. For 'compact', it provides a detailed explanation of token optimization beyond the schema.
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 and resource: 'Search the RoxyAPI knowledge base and get back ranked documentation snippets'. It positions itself as a primary tool for integration, effectively distinguishing it from any potential 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 tells when to use this tool: 'Call this first whenever you need to integrate RoxyAPI...' and lists specific use cases. Provides query guidance: 'Pass the user question verbatim as `query`. If the first results miss, rephrase once and retry.'
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!