Read-only access to published WAX / WEIGHT candle-making calculation guides. list_guides lists or searches public pages; read_guide reads an allowlisted guide. No authentication is required. This endpoint does not remotely calculate recipes, validate safety, choose wicks or predict scent throw. Website: https://waxweigh.com/
The last two health checks of this connector failed. If this server requires authentication, missing or expired test credentials may be the cause. A test profile lets Glama authenticate for health checks and discover tools; it is separate from your personal connections.
If you are the author, claim ownership, then add or update a test profile under Admin → Test Profile.
Scored across 2 tools
list_guides is an index/enumeration operation and read_guide is a targeted fetch by canonical path; the descriptions make the boundary explicit, including that read_guide does not compute recipes.
Both tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (list_guides, read_guide) with a consistent shared noun 'guide', so the pair reads as a coherent family.
Two tools is on the thin side for a server, though the stated scope is a narrow read-only public surface. The count is defensible but leaves little room for querying or filtering.
For a public, no-auth read-only guide surface, list plus read covers the core lifecycle of discovery and retrieval. The only real gap is no search or filter capability when listing guides, which agents can partially work around by reading paths.
List published WAXWEIGH candle math pages. No recipe inputs, account or payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful prerequisite context that no recipe inputs, account, or payment are required, but it says nothing about filtering behavior, pagination, or result shape.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's action and scope, with no filler. Every sentence contributes either purpose or prerequisite context.
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?
For a simple listing tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and an undocumented query parameter, it leaves relevant gaps around filtering and expected results.
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?
The schema has one optional 'query' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. It does not explain what the query filters or how to use it, leaving the only parameter undocumented.
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 states a clear verb and resource: listing published WAXWEIGH candle math pages. It is understandable apart from the sibling read_guide by the verb 'List', though it does not explicitly contrast the two.
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?
Usage is implied by 'List' versus the sibling read_guide, but there is no explicit guidance on when to browse versus when to fetch a single guide. The note about no recipe inputs, account, or payment clarifies prerequisites but not alternative selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read an existing public candle math page by canonical path. Returns sourced page text; does not calculate or validate a candle recipe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: it returns sourced page text and explicitly does not calculate or validate a candle recipe, preventing misuse as a computation 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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence handles return value and negative scope with no filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (sourced page text) and what is not done. Annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undefined canonical path format.
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?
Only one parameter, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the semantics. 'Canonical path' hints that the argument is a stable identifier rather than free text, yet it doesn't define the path format or constraints beyond the schema's maxLength.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (read an existing public candle math page) and adds the retrieval scope by canonical path. It implicitly separates itself from list_guides by being a read-by-key operation, but never names that sibling, so a 5 is not warranted.
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?
It says the page must already exist and be public, which is implied usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus list_guides, no note on how a canonical path is obtained, and no preconditions beyond the schema's required field.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
list_guidesread_guide
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.