A-share HS300 phase signals via Landau-Ginzburg framework. No auth required.
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 3.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Most tools have distinct purposes (global vs A-share, raw signal vs aggregated brief), but daily-brief and signal-latest both include combined data, creating some overlap. Descriptions help clarify, but an agent might occasionally misselect.
All tool names follow a consistent hyphenated lowercase pattern (e.g., arena-signal, daily-brief). No mixing of conventions, making the set predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a market phase detection server, covering core signals, a sensing metric, an aggregated brief, and a full payload without redundancy.
The set covers global and specific market signals, a sensing measurement, and aggregated views. Missing historical data or alert tools, but for the stated domain of phase detection, the coverage is solid.
arena-signalBInspectGlobal market phase signal from Signal Arena (CN/HK/US markets).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as update frequency, data source reliability, or any side effects. A simple signal tool should still explain what a phase signal represents.
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, efficient and front-loaded. However, it could include a bit more detail without losing conciseness.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves room for interpretation. It does not explain the meaning or interpretation of the phase signal, which a user might need.
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, so the description need not add any. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline of 4 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 provides a global market phase signal for CN/HK/US markets from Signal Arena. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'phase-signal' which may have similar 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'phase-signal' or 'signal-latest'. The description lacks context on appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
daily-briefAInspectAggregated daily brief combining phase_signal + ji_sensing + indices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not discuss any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, freshness, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, the description carries the full burden, which it does not satisfy beyond stating the aggregation.
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 that is concise and front-loaded with the key idea. It wastes no words but could benefit from slight expansion, e.g., mentioning that it returns a brief.
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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple aggregated brief, the description adequately states its purpose. It could be more complete by specifying the frequency or format of the brief, but it is sufficient for a low-complexity 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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter explanation is needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no useful parameter info beyond that.
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 provides an aggregated daily brief combining 'phase_signal', 'ji_sensing', and 'indices'. This verb-resource pairing ('aggregated daily brief') is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual signals.
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 versus alternatives. It implies that this is for a combined daily overview, but does not state when not to use it or mention specific contexts like 'signal-latest'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
ji-sensingBInspectSystem of Thought Integration (SoTI) measurement — frozen/comfort/creative_edge zone detection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool measures, not whether it is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or returns cached vs. live data. The minimal description does not fulfill the burden of behavioral disclosure for a sensing tool.
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 that directly states the core function. No wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but omits return format (e.g., does it return a string label like 'frozen' or a numeric score?). With sibling tools, more detail on expected output would enhance completeness for agent invocation.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable. The schema already documents all (nonexistent) parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract.
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 measures System of Thought Integration (SoTI) and detects zones (frozen/comfort/creative_edge). This provides a specific verb (measure/detect) and resource (SoTI zones). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools with similar naming patterns (e.g., 'phase-signal', 'signal-latest'), missing an opportunity to clarify uniqueness.
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 versus alternatives. The sibling tools (arena-signal, daily-brief, phase-signal, signal-latest) imply different signal types, but the description does not address context or exclusions. For a tool with no parameters, even basic usage context (e.g., 'Use this to assess current thinking state') would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
phase-signalBInspectA-share HS300 phase transition signal (Phi, D, chi, delta_F, SoTI, state). Real-time Landau-Ginzburg framework analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'Real-time Landau-Ginzburg framework analysis' but does not state if the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects.
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 sentences and front-loads the key purpose. It is concise with 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?
Given no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing output fields (Phi, D, chi, etc.). However, it does not specify the return format or explain field meanings, leaving some ambiguity for an 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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
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 identifies the resource (A-share HS300) and what it provides (phase transition signal), listing specific output components. However, it lacks a strong verb like 'get' or 'compute', and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools.
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 versus siblings (arena-signal, daily-brief, etc.). There is no information on prerequisites, context, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
signal-latestBInspectComplete signal payload including phase_signal + ji_sensing + indices. Single-call convenience endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It only states 'single-call convenience endpoint' implying aggregation but does not disclose side effects (likely read-only), rate limits, or data recency. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
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-load the purpose and composition of the payload. No wasted words; every sentence 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, description should clarify return value structure. It mentions components but lacks details on format, fields, or what 'indices' refers to. Context is adequate for a simple aggregation tool but incomplete for precise agent use.
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?
Tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. Description need not add parameter details; baseline of 4 is appropriate. It does not explain output structure, but parameter semantics dimension is satisfied.
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 the tool provides a complete signal payload combining phase_signal, ji_sensing, and indices, and identifies it as a convenience endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like phase-signal or ji-sensing, but the verb is implicit (assumed to be 'retrieve' or 'get'), not explicit.
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. sibling tools (e.g., 'use this instead of calling individual endpoints'). No explicit context about preferred scenarios or when not to use it.
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!