TestMCP.dev
Server Details
Free platform to test MCP clients without installing anything. Create mock tools with dynamic templates, configurable delays, conditions (if/then), and response sequences. Supports JSON-RPC 2.0 over Streamable HTTP. Built-in text_echo and json_echo tools. Rate-limited tiers: anonymous (5 calls/min, 1 mock tool), registered (10 calls/min, 4 mock tools), premium (60 calls/min, unlimited). Zero setup — no install, no registration required. More info: https://www.testmcp.dev
- 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 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
The two tools target distinct input types (JSON vs plain text), so there is no ambiguity in choosing between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (json_echo, text_echo), making the naming predictable.
With only 2 tools, the set is minimal but appropriate for a simple echo service; however, it feels thin for a general-purpose server.
The server covers the two main input types (JSON and plain text) for an echo utility, leaving no obvious gaps within its narrow scope.
Available Tools
2 toolsjson_echoJSON EchoBInspect
Receives JSON and returns it as echo (max 256 chars serialized for Free tier, up to 100kb for Premium).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| json_data | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description discloses size limits per tier (256 chars Free, 100kb Premium) but does not mention what happens if exceeded (truncation vs rejection).
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 action and resource. Efficient but could be slightly more structured.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter and known output schema. Description covers core purpose and size limits, lacking error behavior.
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 parameter 'json_data' is described implicitly as 'JSON'. Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no details beyond the type and purpose.
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?
Clearly states it receives JSON and returns it as echo. Distinguishes from sibling text_echo by specifying JSON input. Includes size limits per tier.
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 guidance on when to use vs text_echo, nor when not to use. Only implied by JSON vs text difference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
text_echoText EchoAInspect
Receives plain text (max 256 chars for Free tier, up to 100kb for Premium) and returns it as echo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses core behavior (receive and return text) and size limits by tier. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it is sufficient for a simple 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?
Single sentence that front-loads the core function and efficiently adds size constraint details without waste.
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 low complexity (1 param, no nested objects) and presence of output schema, the description covers input, constraints, and output behavior completely.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter accepts plain text and specifying length limits, adding meaning 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?
Clearly states it echoes plain text, includes tier-based size limits, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling json_echo by specifying 'plain text'.
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?
Provides context for plain text use and hints at alternative (json_echo) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions.
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!