Agent Papers
Server Details
Registry of companies selling AI agents identity, phone, email, addresses, money, legal, insurance
- 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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: compare, get_company, get_schema, list_categories, search, and whats_new have no overlapping purposes. An agent can easily differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or single-word pattern in snake_case, e.g., 'get_company', 'list_categories', 'whats_new'. No mixing of conventions.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped. Each tool serves a clear need without being too few or too many for the domain of agent/company data lookup.
The set covers browsing (list_categories), searching (search), detail retrieval (get_company), comparison (compare), schema exploration (get_schema), and change tracking (whats_new). No obvious gaps for a read-only data service.
Available Tools
6 toolscompareBInspect
Return a comparison matrix for one category with common fields and buyer-relevant category fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | Category id to compare. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states that a comparison matrix is returned. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.
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 concise sentence with no extraneous information. It is well-structured and easy to parse, earning top marks for efficiency.
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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature) and does not explain what 'comparison matrix' or 'buyer-relevant fields' entail. It is minimally complete.
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 covers 100% of parameters and includes a description for 'category' that is identical to the tool description. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.
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 returns a comparison matrix for one category, with common and buyer-relevant fields. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search' or 'list_categories'. However, the meaning of 'buyer-relevant category fields' is somewhat vague, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Without explicit usage context, an AI agent cannot easily decide when 'compare' is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_companyAInspect
Fetch one full Agent Papers company entry including offerings, sources, freshness, and category-specific facts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Company slug, for example agentcall. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool fetches an entry and lists returned fields, which is sufficient for a simple read operation. However, it does not mention potential error states, authentication requirements, or whether the result is always available, leaving minor gaps.
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 sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose and output composition. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value with no 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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It specifies the types of information returned, though it omits mention of error handling or response format. Minor gaps, but overall informative enough for effective use.
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 already provides a clear description for the single 'slug' parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond restating that it fetches a company, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
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 ('Fetch') and the specific resource ('one full Agent Papers company entry') with details on included attributes (offerings, sources, freshness, category-specific facts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search or list_categories, which have 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 when full company details are needed but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search for finding companies, list_categories for browsing). No guidance on prerequisites or conditions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_schemaAInspect
Return field names and plain-English buyer reasons for the full registry schema or one category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category id. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'field names and plain-English buyer reasons', which gives insight into output structure, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or limitations.
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, well-structured sentence of 18 words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning 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 tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and parameter effect. However, it lacks details on the output format or structure, which would be helpful for an agent.
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% coverage with enum and description for the optional 'category' parameter. The description adds value by explaining that the output contains 'plain-English buyer reasons' beyond just field names, enriching the semantic understanding.
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 verb 'Return', the resource 'schema', and the scope ('full registry schema or one category'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_categories' and 'search' 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 for schema retrieval, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any 'when-not' guidance. The optional category parameter gives a hint, but no comprehensive usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_categoriesAInspect
Return every Agent Papers category with counts and short descriptions so an agent can choose the right comparison surface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return includes categories with counts and descriptions, but does not mention other behavioral aspects like sorting, response format, or performance. It is adequate but minimal.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no extraneous words. Every part is necessary.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what is returned and why. Could mention response structure, but not critical for a simple list 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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description does not add additional parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'every Agent Papers category' with specifics ('counts and short descriptions'). The purpose ('so an agent can choose the right comparison surface') distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare or search.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'so an agent can choose the right comparison surface'. While it doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchAInspect
Search Agent Papers companies by name or tagline, optionally constrained by category and status. Returns compact vendor records for ranking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Substring to match against company name and tagline. | |
| status | No | Optional company or offering status filter. | |
| category | No | Optional category filter. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions returning 'compact vendor records for ranking,' but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or side effects (though read-only is implied).
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 efficient sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and optional constraints, then states the return value, making it easy to parse.
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 3 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return type. However, it does not mention result limits, sorting, or pagination, which would enhance completeness for a search 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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description paraphrases the schema (e.g., 'by name or tagline'), adding no new semantic value beyond what is already in the input 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 searches companies by name/tagline with optional category and status filters. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare' and 'get_company', though 'Agent Papers' may be unclear without context.
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 for searching with optional constraints but does not explicitly state when to use over siblings like 'get_company' for specific records or 'list_categories' for browsing categories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
whats_newAInspect
Return changelog entries derived from registry added and updated dates, optionally filtered from a YYYY-MM-DD date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Optional inclusive YYYY-MM-DD lower bound. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions data derivation ('from registry added and updated dates') but omits critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or output structure. The absence of such info for a simple tool is a gap.
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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the main action and filter, achieving maximum efficiency.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns (changelog entries) and the available filter. It could mention output format or error conditions, but omission is minor given simplicity.
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 describes the 'since' parameter with 100% coverage (type, format, optional nature). The description adds 'optionally filtered' which paraphrases but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. 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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'changelog entries derived from registry added and updated dates'. It states the optional date filter, distinguishing it from peers like 'compare', 'search', etc., which have 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 indicates when to use the filter ('optionally filtered from a YYYY-MM-DD date') and implies unfiltered usage is also valid. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings.
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!