get_mcp_endpoint
Get stored transport, authentication, protocol, availability, latency, TLS, redirect and schema-change information for an indexed endpoint.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
RMCP
by dev.rmcp
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get stored... information', implying a read operation but not explicitly stating safety, idempotency, or other behavioral traits. It adds minimal transparency beyond the name.
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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists the types of information retrieved. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks parameter explanation and usage context. It does not fully compensate for the missing annotations or schema details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'id' parameter (e.g., what it represents, format, or examples). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's minimal definition.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves specific information types (transport, authentication, protocol, etc.) for an indexed endpoint, distinguishing it from siblings like check_mcp_endpoint (likely health check) and get_mcp_server (server details).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_mcp_endpoint or get_mcp_server. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: checking endpoints, comparing servers, retrieving install instructions, getting endpoint/server/tool details, or searching. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_mcp_endpoint, search_mcp_tools). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the set covers all necessary query, retrieval, and search functions for an MCP registry without excess. The count feels well-scoped.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover all major read operations for the registry domain, including retrieval of endpoints, servers, tools, and search. Minor gaps like update/delete operations are absent but consistent with a supposedly static index.