UAB Research Computing Docs
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.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: quick start, documentation page retrieval, support info, listing sections, and searching. No overlaps or ambiguity.
All tools use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, search_*), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
5 tools is appropriate for a documentation/support server. It covers the essential actions without being too sparse or overloaded.
The tool set covers the main reading operations (list, search, get) and includes specific items like quick start and support info. However, it lacks navigation to sub-sections or a way to get all pages, which is a minor gap.
get_cheaha_quick_startCInspectQuick start for the Cheaha HPC cluster.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Quick start,' implying a read operation returning introductory content, but does not disclose return format, data volume, or any side effects. The minimal description provides little 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently concise, though it could benefit from a slightly more informative phrase without becoming verbose.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description must compensate. It fails to specify the nature of the 'quick start' (e.g., text, URL, command list), leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively. The tool is simple, but the description is too sparse for complete understanding.
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 and 100% schema coverage, so a baseline of 4 is warranted. However, the description adds no value beyond the tool name—it does not explain what the output contains or how to interpret it. This reduces the score to 3.
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 says 'Quick start for the Cheaha HPC cluster,' identifying the resource (Cheaha) and suggesting it provides introductory information. However, it is vague about what exactly constitutes a 'quick start' (e.g., a guide, commands, or summary), and does not clearly distinguish it from sibling documentation tools like 'get_documentation_page'.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are all documentation-related, but the description does not specify scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_documentation_pageCInspectRetrieve the full content of a specific documentation page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_path | Yes | Path to a docs page: repo path (docs/.../page.md), short path, or a GitHub URL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the full burden falls on the description. It only states 'retrieve full content' without disclosing any constraints, side effects, authentication needs, or response characteristics.
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, front-loaded sentence. It is concise but could be more structured (e.g., using separate lines for purpose and context).
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does not specify what 'full content' includes (e.g., rendered vs raw), possible error conditions, or prerequisites. This leaves the agent underinformed.
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% for the single parameter, providing a detailed definition of page_path. The tool description adds no additional semantic value 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 clear verb-resource pair ('Retrieve the full content of a specific documentation page'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_documentation_sections or search_documentation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to retrieve a single page vs list sections or search). No usage contexts or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_support_infoCInspectGet support info for UAB Research Computing.
| 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 full burden but only describes a simple retrieval; no disclosure of response format, side effects, or permissions.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource.
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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal; an agent cannot infer important details like return format or purpose beyond the name.
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?
No parameters in schema, so baseline is 3; description adds no value beyond 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 action 'Get' and the resource 'support info for UAB Research Computing', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with documentation pages, quick start, and 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it simply states its purpose without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_documentation_sectionsAInspectList the main sections in UAB Research Computing documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states it lists sections, but doesn't disclose behavior like whether it returns metadata, paths, or just names. No mention of side effects, authentication, or rate limits.
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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with verb and resource.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks detail on what constitutes 'main sections' and whether results are paginated. Agents may need to infer 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?
No parameters, so baseline 4 applies. Description adds minimal value beyond the empty schema, but it clarifies the tool's purpose. Could be improved with more detail about the listing.
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?
Description clearly states action 'List' and resource 'main sections in UAB Research Computing documentation'. Distinguishes from siblings like search_documentation or get_cheaha_quick_start which focus on specific pages.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it could mention that this is a starting point before fetching a specific page. Lack of context compared to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_documentationAInspectSearch the UAB Research Computing documentation for relevant content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search term or phrase to look for in the UAB Research Computing documentation. | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of search results to return (default: 5, max: 10). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'search' without indicating whether it's a keyword or semantic search, how results are ordered, or what the output structure is. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or 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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Slightly more detail could be added without losing conciseness, but it is not overly verbose.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, and the moderate complexity of a search tool, the description is incomplete. It omits details about result format, sorting, scope of documentation, and any limitations on query types. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively.
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 adds the default value for max_results (5) which is not in the schema, and clarifies the maximum and minimum constraints. This adds meaningful context 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 uses the specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource 'UAB Research Computing documentation', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_documentation_page or list_documentation_sections which retrieve specific pages or list sections.
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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. Usage is implied but not explicitly directed.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
