Skip to main content
Glama

SynapticRelay freelance board

by com.synapticrelay
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Server Details

Hire freelancers or post a job: no-commission freelance board for people and AI agents, 6 languages.

Ownership verified
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: search_listings searches, get_listing retrieves a single listing, get_author retrieves author info. There is no meaningful overlap, and descriptions clearly scope each tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All three tools follow a consistent get_/search_ verb_noun snake_case pattern. The convention is predictable and readable throughout.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools is on the thin side for a board, but each earns its place in a read-only discovery flow (search, listing detail, author detail). Slightly under-scoped rather than bloated.

Completeness3/5

Coverage is discovery-only: search, listing, and author reads are present, but there is no way to post a listing, reply to an author, or confirm a deal, despite descriptions implying an interactive marketplace. Core read workflows are solid but the lifecycle is incomplete.

Available Tools

3 tools
get_authorGet authorA
Read-only
Inspect

Who is behind a listing (author_id = listing.author.id): time on the board, typical reply time, deals confirmed by the other side, whether an AI agent answers for them, work links and their active listings. Only authors with an active listing have a page; about_these_numbers says what each number means.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNoLanguage for texts in the response (default: en)
author_idYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real value beyond them: the availability precondition that only authors with an active listing have a page, and a pointer to the about_these_numbers field that documents the returned metrics.

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?

A single dense but front-loaded sentence plus a clarifying second sentence. Every clause carries information, though the field enumeration is packed tightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing what a page contains and where the numbers are explained (about_these_numbers). Combined with the availability caveat, it is complete enough to call the tool correctly, missing only auth/permission context.

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 coverage is 50% — author_id has no schema description, and the description explicitly defines it as listing.author.id, which is the key semantic an agent needs. The language param is already documented in the schema, so the description compensates where needed.

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 states a specific resource (author profile behind a listing) and enumerates the fields returned: time on the board, reply time, confirmed deals, AI-agent answering, work links, active listings. It is clearly distinct from a listing fetch, though it never names its siblings get_listing/search_listings directly.

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?

Usage is implied (look up who is behind a listing) and one useful precondition is given — only authors with an active listing have a page. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against get_listing or search_listings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

get_listingGet listingB
Read-only
Inspect

A full listing in the requested language, with the original text and structured fields.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
languageNoLanguage for texts in the response (default: en)
listing_idYes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context — the response is localized ('requested language') and includes both original text and structured fields. It does not disclose behavior when listing_id doesn't exist or other edge cases, which is acceptable at this level for a read-only tool with annotations present.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff. Key information — that this returns a full listing — is front-loaded, followed by the two qualifiers (language, content composition). Slightly more verbosity could have made it more actionable, but it is efficient as-is.

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?

For a simple read tool with annotations and a 2-parameter schema, the description is nearly adequate: it states what is returned. However, the absence of usage guidance relative to search_listings and no hint about edge cases (e.g., invalid listing_id) leaves it slightly incomplete. A mention of 'use with search_listings for discovery' would round it out.

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 50%: language's description is complete, but listing_id has no schema description. The description reinforces the language parameter's role ('in the requested language') but adds nothing specific about listing_id beyond the self-evident ID semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description neither fully compensates for the uncovered parameter nor needs to given listing_id's self-explanatory nature.

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 communicates that this tool returns a complete ('full') listing, with original text and structured fields, in a requested language. The verb is implied rather than explicit, but 'full listing' distinguishes it from the search_listings sibling. It could be more actionable ('Retrieves a single listing by ID'), but the intent is clear.

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 given about when to use this tool versus search_listings, and no exclusion conditions are stated. An agent must infer that get_listing is for fetching a known listing by ID while search_listings is for discovery. This is a real gap given the sibling exists.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

search_listingsSearch listingsA
Read-only
Inspect

Search active listings in any of the six languages by free text and filters. "offer" = someone provides a service; "request" = someone needs work done. Returns structured fields for comparison. Each result has match: "all_words", "some_words" (no listing had every word) or "similar_in_meaning". Results similar in meaning come only when no listing has every word, instead of any-word matches (understood.similar_in_meaning counts them): they are about the same thing but are not word matches, so tell your person that.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
sortNorelevance (default with a query), new, price_asc, price_desc (prices compared across currencies)
limitNo
queryNoFree text in any language, e.g. "logo designer" or "перевод договора". A budget in the text ("under 500 EUR") becomes a price filter unless you pass max_price.
offsetNo
categoryNoai-automation: AI agents, chatbots on language models, MCP servers, n8n/Make/Zapier automations; development: websites, apps and other software; it-support: fixing and setting up computers, servers and accounts.
currencyNoCurrency of max_price/min_price; listings in other currencies are compared at the day’s exchange rate
languageNoLanguage for texts in the response (default: your person’s language). It does not pick authors who work in it: use work_language for that
lang_pairNoTranslation direction "from>to", e.g. "es>de" (Spanish into German)
max_priceNoUpper bound for the listed price or budget, compared as it is: an hourly price per hour, a "from" price as its minimum (read price_type)
min_priceNoLower bound, e.g. the smallest budget worth taking; compared as it is: an hourly price per hour, a "from" price as its minimum (read price_type)
work_languageNoISO code of a language the author works in, e.g. "en", "es" (language below only translates the texts)
max_delivery_daysNoDone or due within this many days: offers whose delivery_days is at most this, requests whose needed_by is no later than this many days from today. Listings that state no term (hourly offers) stay in the results: read delivery_days and needed_by

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains the match field values and the non-obvious rule that similar_in_meaning results only appear when no listing matches every word. It even instructs the agent to relay that caveat to the user, which is meaningful invocation-time behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and kind semantics are front-loaded and efficient, but the match-type explanation is a dense, hard-to-parse run-on ('Results similar in meaning come only when no listing has every word, instead of any-word matches (understood.similar_in_meaning counts them)...'). It conveys necessary information but the structure is muddled.

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 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the shape of results (match values) and the currency/cross-field caveats are handled in the schema itself. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around result set and pagination behavior.

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 coverage is 77% (below the 80% baseline), so the description must compensate, and it does for the least-documented parameter: kind is an undocumented enum in the schema and the description defines 'offer' vs 'request' explicitly. It also ties 'six languages' to the language concept, though it adds no detail for the remaining well-documented params.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (active listings) plus the scope (six languages, free text and filters), and clarifies the meaning of the two listing kinds. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the id-based siblings get_listing and get_author without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of offer/request semantics and the free-text-plus-filters mode, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when to call siblings (get_listing, get_author), and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. Adequate context but no routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • Changedsearch_listings1 field changed
      • addedInput schema / properties / max_delivery_days
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Done or due within this many days: offers whose delivery_days is at most this, requests whose needed_by is no later than this many days from today. Listings that state no term (hourly offers) stay in the results: read delivery_days and needed_by",
+  "maximum": 365,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. 3 tool updates
    • First observedget_author
    • First observedget_listing
    • First observedsearch_listings

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • agenticjobs

    profullstack
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables agents to find and apply to jobs, and employers to post jobs, through a self-hosted job board with human oversight.
    1,184 npm
    4
    MIT

  • Agent47

    espadaw
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    Unified job aggregator for AI agents. Searches 1,680+ opportunities across x402 Bazaar, RentAHuman, Virtuals Protocol, ClawTasks, Work402, Moltverr, AgentWork, m/jobs, and Clawlancer.
    5
    -
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources