A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceNetwork diagnostics — ping, traceroute, DNS lookup, port scanning, and connectivity testing via MCP.
Last updated
14
MIT
SPLIDIA — operational notes and capabilities
by com.splidia
Server Details
Fibre optics, OTDR, network design and data centre notes from SPLIDIA, plus its service catalogue.
- 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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A3.8/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 3.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: capabilities provides a static overview, fetch retrieves full articles, match_use_case maps needs to capabilities, and search finds articles. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names mix parts of speech and styles: 'capabilities' (noun), 'fetch' (bare verb), 'match_use_case' (verb_noun with underscore), 'search' (bare verb). While each is clear, there is no consistent naming pattern.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose—providing a service catalogue and searchable operational notes. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary excess or glaring omissions.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for the intended use: viewing the profile, searching articles, fetching full text, and matching use cases. No obvious gaps for a static catalogue and search system.
Available Tools
4 toolscapabilitiesCSIDIA group services and profileBInspect
Profilo del gruppo CSIDIA e catalogo dei servizi: chi siamo, posizionamento, capacità (cosa facciamo, risultati, settori, modelli di erogazione, pagina, articoli correlati), settori, vincoli e come iniziare. csidia = dati/AI/conformità, splidia = fibra ottica/reti/data center. / Profile of the CSIDIA group and its service catalogue: positioning, capabilities, sectors, delivery models, constraints and how to start.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Marchio di cui restituire il profilo (default all) / brand to profile | |
| detail | No | false (default) = una riga per capacità, risposta compatta; true = descrizione completa, risultati, domande tipiche e articoli correlati / false (default) = one line per capability; true = full detail | |
| language | No | Lingua dei testi (default it) / text language | |
| capability_id | No | Dettaglio di una sola capacità, per id (es. 'conformita-documentale-assistita') / detail for a single capability id |
Tool Definition Quality
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
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 does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication, nor does it mention any side effects or rate limits. The description only lists content categories.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences covering both Italian and English, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and key differentiators, making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists content topics (positioning, capabilities, sectors) but does not specify the output structure or format, which is important given no output schema. Behavioral context is missing, but the parameter details are adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds limited extra value. It does clarify that 'site' distinguishes brands and 'detail' controls response verbosity, but these align with schema descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns the profile of the CSIDIA group and service catalogue, including capabilities, sectors, and constraints. It differentiates between csidia and splidia, but the verb is implicit rather than explicit, preventing a top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'fetch' or 'search'. The description distinguishes internal brand options but does not address alternative tools, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetchFetch a full articleAInspect
Ritorna il testo integrale di un articolo dato il suo id (l'URL restituito da 'search'). / Returns the full text of an article given its id (the URL returned by 'search').
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id/URL dell'articolo |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
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 states the tool returns full text, implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or what happens if the id is invalid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short sentences (bilingual) that front-load the key functionality. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It could optionally mention the return type or format, but the lack is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that the id is the URL returned by 'search', which provides context beyond the schema's generic description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('fetch'/'Ritorna') and resource ('full text of an article') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the id is the URL from 'search'. The bilingual text reinforces understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after 'search' by referencing its output. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
match_use_caseMatch a need to CSIDIA capabilitiesAInspect
Data la descrizione libera di un'esigenza operativa, restituisce le capacità del gruppo CSIDIA più pertinenti, con il perché (termini che hanno fatto match), il sito di riferimento, il modello di erogazione, gli articoli correlati e il passo successivo. Se non c'è corrispondenza lo dice e restituisce il profilo sintetico. / Given a free-text operational need, returns the most relevant CSIDIA capabilities with the reason for the match, reference site, delivery model, related articles and next step.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | Descrizione libera dell'esigenza o del problema / free-text description of the need | |
| limit | No | Numero massimo di capacità (default 3) | |
| sector | No | Settore di riferimento, id o nome (es. manufacturing, energy, logistics, public-sector, healthcare, defence, telecomunicazioni, data-center, industria) / sector id or name | |
| language | No | Lingua dei testi (default it) / text language |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return format (matched capabilities with reason, site, etc.) and behavior on no match (says so and returns synthetic profile). Does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects, but adequately covers core behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two bilingual sentences, front-loaded with Italian then English. Compact but slightly redundant due to bilingual nature. No waste; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (reason, site, etc.) and failure case. However, it does not reference optional parameters like limit, sector, or language in the description text. Still sufficient for a matching tool with good schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, achieving baseline. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema definitions (e.g., 'free-text need' is already in schema). No parameter-specific elaboration in description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's verb ('restituisce/returns') and resource ('capacità del gruppo CSIDIA / CSIDIA capabilities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings: 'capabilities' likely lists all, while this tool matches a specific need. The bilingual text reinforces the specific action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (when you have a free-text need) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. No comparison to sibling tools like 'capabilities' or 'search', so context-aware selection is left to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch CSIDIA group articlesAInspect
Cerca negli articoli (Note operative) di csidia.com (dati, AI, conformità nei settori critici) e splidia.com (fibra ottica, reti, data center). Ritorna una lista di risultati con id da passare a 'fetch'. / Searches the operational notes of csidia.com and splidia.com. Returns results whose id can be passed to 'fetch'.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Filtro sito (default all) | |
| limit | No | Numero massimo di risultati (default 8) | |
| query | Yes | Termini di ricerca / search terms | |
| language | No | Filtro lingua (default all) |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool returns results with IDs, implying a read-only operation, but omits details like result ordering, pagination, latency, or any side effects. It does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that cover the purpose, scope, and linkage to a sibling tool. Bilingual but no wasted words. Front-loaded with actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description sufficiently explains that the result list contains IDs for use with 'fetch'. It covers what is searched and how to proceed. Could mention result fields briefly, but acceptable for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions and enums, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. The mention of returning IDs provides some output context but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches operational notes from two specific sites (csidia.com and splidia.com) with their domains. It uses a specific verb ('cerca' / 'searches') and resource ('articoli' / 'operational notes'), and explicitly ties results to the sibling tool 'fetch', distinguishing it from other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates that returned results can be passed to 'fetch', establishing a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond fetch.
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!
Related MCP Servers
@splice-cad/mcpofficial
Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceMCP server for Splice CAD cable assembly and wiring harness design tool. Enables AI agents to search parts, build harness plans, create components with specs, and generate manufacturing documentation.Last updated191MIT- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceAI-powered MCP assistant for telecom synchronization standards (ITU-T & 3GPP). Ask questions about PTP, SyncE, GNSS, timing budgets in plain English and get answers with exact standard references.Last updated4
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for IntoDNS.ai providing 36 free tools for DNS, DMARC, SPF, DKIM, BIMI, DNSSEC, MTA-STS, FCrDNS, blacklist and email security checks. Citation-grade report snapshots with content hashes. No API key required.Last updated361582MIT