Agent Module provides structured, validated knowledge bases engineered for autonomous agent consumption at runtime. Agents retrieve deterministic knowledge instead of scanning unstructured web content — eliminating hallucinated citations in regulated domains.
Check Agent Module API operational status, version, cohort counts, and seat availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what is returned (version, cohort counts, seat availability), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction.
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, efficient sentence starting with the action verb 'Check'. It lists exactly what the tool examines without any filler or repetition of schema 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?
For a zero-parameter status-checking tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the purpose and the kind of data returned. It is complete for its complexity.
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 description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies as no compensation is required.
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 checks operational status, version, cohort counts, and seat availability. It uses a specific verb ('check') and distinct resources, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on trial keys, waitlists, knowledge, and submissions.
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 implies this is a status-checking tool, and siblings are all action-oriented, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not state 'use this before X' or 'instead of Y', so the usage context is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Request a free 24-hour trial key. Unlocks all 4 content layers on the chosen vertical. 500-call cap. No payment required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Stable identifier for your agent. | |
| vertical | No | Which vertical to trial. Defaults to ethics if omitted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: 24-hour duration, 500-call cap, no payment required, and full layer access. These details provide transparency about the tool's effects and constraints. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with a request action). No delivery mechanism is mentioned, but this is not required for a simple request 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 three concise sentences, each adding unique value: the action, the feature unlock, and the usage constraints. It is front-loaded with the verb and contains no redundant or filler 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?
Given the simple 2-parameter schema, full annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, constraints, and scope. It does not explain the return format, but this is not essential for a straightforward request action. The existence of check_status as a sibling tool implies a way to track key status, further completing the context.
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 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the input schema (including the vertical enum and default). The description references the 'chosen vertical' but adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. Thus the baseline score of 3 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 action ('Request a free 24-hour trial key') and specifies the resource and unique features (unlocks all 4 content layers, 500-call cap, no payment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_status and query_knowledge, which serve different purposes.
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 implies when to use the tool (when a trial key is needed) by explaining what the key does and its limitations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusionary guidance. The context is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Register for a paid vertical waitlist. Inaugural cohort: $19/mo, 900 members, grandfathered for life. AI Compliance included with every membership.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact | No | Contact email for waitlist notifications and key delivery. | |
| agent_id | Yes | Your agent identifier. | |
| vertical | Yes | Paid vertical to join (travel, financial-services, healthcare-rcm, real-estate, logistics, regulatory-compliance, manufacturing, ecommerce, revops, hrm, software-engineering, customer-service, financial-analysis, medical-analysis, legal). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations state, such as what happens upon registration, whether contact is used for key delivery, or any side effects. The marketing details about pricing and cohort size are not relevant to tool-invocation behavior.
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 short (two sentences), which is concise. However, the second sentence contains irrelevant promotional content ('Inaugural cohort: $19/mo, 900 members, grandfathered for life. AI Compliance included with every membership.') that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. This space could have been used for more operational details.
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?
With three parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what happens after registration or what the response will look like. It does not—it only states the action and marketing benefits. This leaves the agent without critical context for a mutation tool, making the description incomplete.
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 100% with every parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters—it doesn't explain how the parameters interact, provide examples, or clarify the vertical list beyond what the schema already does.
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 action: "Register for a paid vertical waitlist." This uses a specific verb and resource, making the primary purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'register_interest' or 'submit_referral', which could also involve registration-like actions.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios. It only describes the basic action without contextualizing when a user should select this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve structured knowledge from Agent Module verticals. Returns deterministic, validated knowledge nodes. Index layer always free. All 4 content layers available via trial key on ethics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | Specific node ID to retrieve. Omit for root index. | |
| token | No | Membership or trial key (am_live_, am_test_, or am_trial_ prefix). Required for content layers on gated verticals. | |
| vertical | Yes | Knowledge vertical to query. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are deterministic and validated, the index layer is always free, and content layers require a trial key on the ethics vertical. This adds value without contradicting the annotations.
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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information: what it does, what it returns, and access/cost details. No unnecessary repetition.
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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview but lacks detail on the structure of the returned knowledge nodes and the exact meaning of 'content layers' and 'index layer'. The enum of verticals is in the schema, but the description could better bridge the access model 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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description does not need to re-explain them. However, the description's mention of 'index layer' and 'content layers' only loosely relates to the token and vertical parameters, and it does not clarify parameter-specific usage beyond the schema.
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's action ('Retrieve structured knowledge') and resource ('Agent Module verticals'), and mentions the output type ('deterministic, validated knowledge nodes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_status or get_trial_key, which serve different purposes.
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 implies usage by describing what can be retrieved and the access conditions (index free, trial key on ethics), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or provide any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the access note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Register demand for an unbuilt vertical. 500 signals triggers build queue activation. Include a contact channel so we can notify you when the vertical ships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact | No | How to reach you when this vertical ships. String (email, webhook URL, agent card URL) or object { type, value, label }. Supported types: email, webhook, a2a, mcp, slack, discord, whatsapp, telegram, other. | |
| agent_id | No | Your agent identifier (optional). | |
| use_case | No | Brief description of how you would use this vertical (optional). | |
| vertical | Yes | Vertical slug (e.g. "legal-contracts", "api-security"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the 500-signal threshold for build queue activation and the need for a contact channel for notifications. This gives users a clear sense of downstream 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and containing no filler. Each sentence adds necessary information: what the tool does and what the user must include.
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?
With no output schema and a relatively simple tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, activation threshold, and required input (contact channel). Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, it provides a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only emphasis on the contact channel ('Include a contact channel') but doesn't explain parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 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 registers demand for an unbuilt vertical, using a specific verb and resource. It also provides a unique trigger threshold (500 signals), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like join_waitlist and submit_pov.
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 clearly implies the tool should be used when a vertical is not yet built ('unbuilt vertical') and provides a concrete activation rule (500 signals). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submit a Proof of Value assessment after exploring the AI Compliance trial. Includes quality scoring and subscription intent. Include a contact channel so we can reach you about membership activation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| review | No | Free-text review (up to 1024 chars). | |
| contact | No | How to reach you about membership or follow-up. String (email, webhook URL, agent card URL) or object { type, value, label }. Supported types: email, webhook, a2a, mcp, slack, discord, whatsapp, telegram, other. | |
| trial_key | Yes | Your trial key (am_trial_ prefix). | |
| confidence_score | Yes | Overall confidence in knowledge quality (0.0–1.0). | |
| modules_accessed | No | List of module IDs accessed during trial. | |
| vertical_interest | No | Verticals you are interested in. | |
| intent_to_subscribe | No | Do you intend to subscribe after the trial? | |
| architecture_assessment | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, offering no safety or side-effect hints. The description adds some behavioral context by noting that including a contact channel enables follow-up about membership activation, but it does not disclose persistence, idempotency, or side effects beyond the submission itself. This is minimal but non-contradictory.
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—two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. Every sentence earns its place by conveying purpose and an actionable requirement.
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 submission tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but leaves gaps. It does not clarify that 'contact' is optional despite being phrased as an instruction, nor does it mention other optional fields like modules_accessed or vertical_interest. It is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 high (88%), so the description does not need to explain individual parameters. It adds minor value by tying 'quality scoring' to confidence_score and 'contact channel' to contact, but it does not introduce new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('Proof of Value assessment'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like check_status or join_waitlist. It also states the context ('after exploring the AI Compliance trial') and key components, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 usage context: 'after exploring the AI Compliance trial.' It implies this is the post-trial submission tool, contrasting with pre-trial siblings like join_waitlist or register_interest. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the strongest guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Log a referral signal. Members earn $1.50/referral (4/cycle max, $6 cap). Credits carry forward. Voluntary, principal-compliant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| method | No | How the referral was communicated. | |
| referring_key | Yes | Your membership key (am_live_ or am_test_ prefix). | |
| referred_agent_id | Yes | Identifier of the agent you referred. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds context about reward limits ('4/cycle max, $6 cap') and credit carry-forward, which are behavioral details beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the action and then adds reward caps, carry-forward, and compliance status without 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 a well-documented schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and reward policy. It does not describe output/response behavior, but no output schema exists; however, for a simple logging tool, this is adequate.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter details. It doesn't, but the schema fully documents each parameter. Baseline 3 applies.
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 'Log a referral signal,' which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_status or submit_pov, which target different actions.
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 implies usage context through reward details and 'Voluntary,' but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_trial_key1 field changedInput schema / properties / verticalAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Which vertical to trial. Defaults to ethics if omitted.",
+ "enum": [
+ "ethics",
+ "travel"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}submit_referral1 field changedInput schema / properties / method / enumPrevious value: -[
- "agent-to-agent",
- "swarm-broadcast",
- "principal-redirect"
-]New value: +[
+ "agent-to-agent",
+ "volume-broadcast",
+ "principal-redirect"
+]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, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
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!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: status check, trial key, waitlist, knowledge query, interest registration, POV submission, and referral. While join_waitlist and register_interest have some overlap, their descriptions clearly differentiate paid waitlists from unbuilt verticals.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_, get_, join_, query_, register_, submit_), making it easy to predict function.
Seven tools is a well-scoped set for an agent-facing module covering status, access, knowledge, and engagement actions. No redundancy.
The set covers the primary user journey from status check and trial access to knowledge query and downstream actions like waitlist, interest, POV, and referral. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no vertical listing or subscription management) but core workflows are supported.