Solana pre-trade safety for agents: rug check, honeypot sell-sim, drainer scan, tx preflight.
Adds two numbers and returns the sum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | ||
| b | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It fully captures the behavior of this pure function: two numeric inputs in, a sum out, with no side effects, state changes, or external dependencies to disclose. Edge cases like overflow are not mentioned, but for a simple arithmetic operation the core behavior is completely transparent.
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?
A single eight-word sentence that front-loads the verb and object and contains zero wasted words. Every token earns its place.
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 two-parameter pure arithmetic function with no output schema, no annotations, and no nested objects, the description covers what the tool does, what it consumes, and what it returns. Nothing material is missing at this complexity level.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the phrase 'two numbers' maps directly onto the two required parameters a and b and states the operation that relates them. Since addition is commutative, parameter ordering is irrelevant, so no further per-parameter guidance is needed.
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 ('Adds'), the resource ('two numbers'), and the result ('returns the sum'). The description is unambiguous on its own and clearly distinct from the sibling tools echo and server_time, which have no relation to arithmetic.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. The use case is strongly implied by the name and description — use it when you need to sum two numbers — and the siblings are unrelated, so real ambiguity is low. However, the description does not explicitly state conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Echoes the provided text back to the caller.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to echo back |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Echoes the provided text back to the caller' fully and accurately describes the tool's behavior, including the side-effect-free nature and the return value. There is no hidden state, destructive action, or additional behavior to disclose.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, and the core behavior is stated immediately.
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 trivial complexity, the one-parameter input schema, and the absence of an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. Nothing important is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'text' parameter adequately. The main description adds the operation-level meaning ('echoes back') but does not add anything beyond what the schema already provides for the parameter itself, matching the baseline for full 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 uses a specific verb ('Echoes') and resource ('the provided text'), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like 'add' and 'server_time', which serve entirely different functions.
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. There are no explicit exclusions or context cues, leaving the agent to infer that this is simply a utility for echoing text without any comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns the current server time (ISO 8601, UTC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format and timezone, but does not explicitly mention the absence of side effects, whether the time is captured at execution time, or any other behavioral traits.
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 that front-loads the key behavioral fact and provides the exact output format. No filler or redundant wording.
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, no-output-schema utility tool, the description fully specifies what the agent will receive: current server time in ISO 8601 UTC. Nothing essential is missing.
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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the empty schema is entirely sufficient. The description adds meaningful output context without needing to explain parameter semantics.
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 specific verb ('Returns'), a clear resource ('current server time'), and the output format ('ISO 8601, UTC'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools 'add' and 'echo'.
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 usage context is implied: use when the agent needs the current server time. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to the sibling tools, though those tools are clearly unrelated operations.
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.
addechoserver_timesolana_address_risksolana_fee_weathersolana_honeypot_sell_simsolana_rug_checksolana_rug_check_litesolana_safe_launch_watchlistsolana_trade_verdictsolana_tx_preflightsolidus_decision_loopsolidus_risk_ritualsolana_address_risksolana_fee_weathersolana_honeypot_sell_simsolana_rug_checksolana_rug_check_litesolana_safe_launch_watchlistsolana_trade_verdictsolana_tx_preflightsolidus_decision_loopsolidus_risk_ritualClaiming 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!
Solana token safety for AI agents — rug-pull, honeypot & Token-2022 trap detection before you buy.
Pre-trade safety check for AI agents: honeypot, tax, liquidity and rug risk before you buy.
Solana pre-trade safety for AI agents: cabal, bundle, dump, deployer & honeypot in one verdict.
Rug-check & launch radar for trading agents: composite honeypot score, EVM+Solana, keyless x402.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool performs a clearly distinct function: arithmetic, echoing text, and returning time. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All names are lowercase and simple, but they mix verb-style (add, echo) with a noun-style (server_time). The pattern is mostly consistent and predictable.
Three tools is a reasonable size for a small utility server. Each tool earns its place and none feel redundant.
There is no clear domain to assess completeness against, so it feels like an arbitrary collection of utilities. No obvious dead ends, but also no cohesive feature set.