Elder Futhark rune meanings, scholarly articles & book reviews, plus the runescript builder.
Describe Runoscript's runescript builder and galdrastav (bind-rune) and link to them. Use when the user wants to create/build/generate a runescript, bind-rune or talisman. Generation runs on the website (free tier + paid), not in chat. lang: en|ru|de|es.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| summary | No | |
| galdrastav | No | |
| runescript_builder | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description discloses that generation runs on the website (free tier + paid), which is a key behavioral constraint. No other behavioral traits are critical for a descriptive 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?
Description is relatively concise with two main ideas: what it does and usage guidance. Could be tightened slightly but is not verbose.
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's simplicity (1 parameter with default, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter meaning thoroughly. No 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 description coverage is 0%, but description adds allowed values for lang (en|ru|de|es) beyond the schema, which only has a default. This compensates fully.
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 describes the runescript builder and galdrastav, and links to them. It distinguishes from siblings (explain_rune, search_content) by focusing on the builder tool.
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 instructs to use when the user wants to create/build/generate a runescript, bind-rune, or talisman. Also notes that generation occurs on the website, not in chat, providing clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Look up the meaning of an Elder Futhark rune.
Returns its name, historical and esoteric meaning, phoneme, divination reading and keywords. Accepts a rune name (Fehu / Феху), stem (01-fehu) or latin (*fehu). Set reversed=true for the inverted/shadow divination meaning. lang: en|ru|de|es.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en | |
| rune | Yes | ||
| reversed | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| n | No | |
| hint | No | |
| name | No | |
| stem | No | |
| found | No | |
| latin | No | |
| query | No | |
| source | No | |
| phoneme | No | |
| keywords | No | |
| reversed | No | |
| divination | No | |
| learn_more | No | |
| esoteric_meaning | No | |
| historical_meaning | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only lookup and discloses that reversed=true provides inverted meaning. No rate limits or auth mentioned, but acceptable for a simple query 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though a slight restructuring into bullet points could improve readability.
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 an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it lists them. All three parameters are handled. The tool is fully explained for its purpose.
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%, but the description adds meaning to all parameters: rune formats, reversed for inverted meaning, and lang with language examples. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
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 looks up the meaning of an Elder Futhark rune, specifying the returned fields (name, meaning, phoneme, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like about_builder and search_content.
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 acceptable input formats for rune (name, stem, latin) and mentions optional parameters reversed and lang. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the tool's single purpose makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search Runoscript's knowledge base about runes.
Covers scholarly rune articles, honest book reviews (Thorsson, Paxson, Zeland…), rune magic, divination, history and practice. Returns the top matches with title, URL and a snippet. Use to ground answers about runes in cited Runoscript content. lang: en|ru|de|es.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns top matches with title, URL, and snippet, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or behavior on empty results. This is adequate but not thorough.
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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by scope, return format, usage guidance, and a param note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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 output schema exists, the description appropriately covers return fields. It addresses the tool's purpose, usage, and param 'lang', but omits 'limit' behavior. Sibling differentiation is implicit but sufficient.
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%, so the description should compensate. It partially does by explaining that 'lang' accepts en|ru|de|es, and indirectly describes 'query' as the search term. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, leaving a gap.
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 'Search Runoscript's knowledge base about runes' and lists covered topics, distinguishing it from siblings 'about_builder' and 'explain_rune'. It specifies the verb, resource, and scope.
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 a clear use case: 'Use to ground answers about runes in cited Runoscript content.' It implies when to use versus siblings, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Grounds LLMs in real Old Norse: lemmas, mediopassive paradigms, English→Old Norse lookup.
AI-powered biblical research tools — lexicons, morphology, manuscripts, and more.
Characters, campaigns, adventures & worlds for D&D 5e/5.5e, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, Fate, & more.
Read-only Wheel of Heaven corpus: myth search, primary texts, datasets, typed graph. CC0.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: about_builder for creating bind-runes, explain_rune for rune meanings, and search_content for knowledge base queries. No overlap.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (explain_rune, search_content), but about_builder uses a preposition_verb pattern, breaking consistency.
Three tools are well-scoped for the server's domain: rune reference, bind-rune creation, and knowledge base search. Not too few or too many.
Covers core needs (meaning, creation, search) but lacks a tool to list all runes or get an overview, which is a minor gap.
