Reecopedia
Server Details
Regulatory search engine for EU textile sustainability law: ESPR, DPP, CSRD, CBAM, CWA 18291.
- 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 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
The two search tools (search and search_eu_textile_regulations) have nearly identical descriptions, making it ambiguous which to use. Other tools are distinct.
Naming is mostly snake_case but mixes verb-only (fetch, search) with verb_phrase (find_exact_text, search_eu_textile_regulations) and a prepositional tool (about_reecopedia).
Six tools is a reasonable count for a specialized search system, though the redundant search tools could be consolidated.
Covers core functionality: search, exact lookup, document structure, and page retrieval. Missing listing of available documents or corpus updates, but sufficient for querying.
Available Tools
6 toolsabout_reecopediaAbout Reecopedia & privacyARead-onlyInspect
What Reecopedia is, who runs it, and its privacy policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context about the tool's content (description, operators, privacy policy), which is valuable beyond annotations. No behavioral contradictions.
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 containing all necessary information. No wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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 an output schema exists, the description fully explains what the tool returns. For a simple informational tool, this is 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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 provides information about Reecopedia, its operators, and privacy policy. It uses a specific verb ('what it is') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that are for searching and fetching.
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 an overview of Reecopedia is needed. There are no sibling tools with similar purpose, so alternatives are not needed, but explicit guidance on when not to use it is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
document_outlineDocument outline (headings index)ARead-onlyInspect
Return the heading tree (table of sections) of an indexed document,
so you can explore its structure before fetching pages. Each entry has
the heading text, its full path, depth and first page: pass the page to
fetch as "#p" to read it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | Yes | Exact source file name as returned by `search` / `search_eu_textile_regulations` (e.g. "CELEX-02024R1781-20240628.pdf"). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (heading text, path, depth, first page). However, it doesn't mention edge cases like documents without headings, which would improve transparency.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and 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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (present from context). The description explains output structure sufficiently, and with output schema available, no further details are needed. The context is complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
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 the parameter 'document' with a detailed description (exact source file name from search). The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema, so 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Return the heading tree (table of sections) of an indexed document'. It specifies the resource 'heading tree' and the action 'return', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fetch' which retrieves 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?
The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'before fetching pages', and also instructs how to use the output: 'pass the page to `fetch` as "<document>#p<page>" to read it'. This provides clear usage context and differentiates from fetching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetchFetch document page (deep research interface)ARead-onlyInspect
Fetch the full text of a regulatory document page returned by search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A result id from `search`, format "<source-file>#p<page>" (e.g. "REG_2024_1781_ESPR_EN.pdf#p39"). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate. It adds context about the id format and that it fetches a page, but beyond that, the behavioral details are adequately covered by annotations.
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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 presence of an output schema (hands return value details) and the simplicity of the tool, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what input it expects. No gaps.
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%, and the description adds value by explaining the id format and its relation to search results, providing meaning beyond the schema's basic description.
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 'fetch' and the resource 'full text of a regulatory document page', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' which returns results. It is specific and unambiguous.
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 after 'search' by referencing results from it, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_exact_textFind exact text (literal search)ARead-onlyInspect
Find literal occurrences of an exact string in the corpus — article
numbers, regulation ids, precise wording (e.g. "Article 8(3)",
"2024/1781"). Complements semantic search: use this when you need the
exact string, not the concept. Returns one match per (file, page) with an
occurrence count and a text snippet; read the full page with fetch.
Scans the literal chunk text of both indexes the semantic search serves
(the two chunkings differ, so some passages exist in only one); the
synthetic contextual enrichment is NOT scanned — it is not document text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The exact string to find (min 3 characters). | |
| document | No | Optional exact source file name to restrict the search. | |
| max_results | No | Max (file, page) matches to return (1-50, default 20). | |
| case_sensitive | No | Exact-case match (default False). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context on what the tool returns (match per file+page with count and snippet), that it scans the primary index, and that full pages can be fetched with another tool. No contradictions.
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?
Three concise sentences with clear front-loading: purpose, usage distinction, and output behavior. No unnecessary words.
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?
With an existing output schema and strong annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects (return structure, index scope, cross-tool guidance) making it complete 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are adequate. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, except for usage examples which are more about 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?
The description clearly states 'Find literal occurrences of an exact string in the corpus' with examples (e.g., 'Article 8(3)'), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'search' tool by contrasting exact string vs. concept.
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 explicit guidance: 'use this when you need the exact string, not the concept' and mentions complementary tools (search, fetch). Clearly indicates when to use this vs. alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchSearch (deep research interface)ARead-onlyInspect
Search EU textile sustainability regulations (ESPR, DPP, CSRD, CBAM,
EU ETS, CWA 18291, JRC studies). Deep-research interface: returns a list
of matching regulatory passages as {results: [{id, title, text, url}]}.
Pass a result id to the fetch tool to get the full document page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The regulatory question, in any language (English works best). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's added context about returning a list of passages with specific fields and the cross-reference to fetch provides valuable behavioral transparency beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences that efficiently introduce the tool's domain, output format, and a cross-reference to a related tool, with no wasted words.
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?
The description covers the core functionality and output structure, but lacks details on edge cases like empty results or pagination, and fails to differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'search_eu_textile_regulations'.
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 describes the query parameter, but the description adds that it should be a regulatory question in any language (English best), providing additional 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?
The description clearly states it searches EU textile sustainability regulations and lists specific acronyms (ESPR, DPP, etc.), providing a specific verb and resource. However, the presence of a sibling tool named 'search_eu_textile_regulations' suggests possible redundancy, reducing clarity on differentiation.
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 the tool is for deep research of regulations and mentions passing result IDs to the fetch tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_eu_textile_regulations' or 'find_exact_text'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_eu_textile_regulationsSearch EU textile regulationsARead-onlyInspect
Search the Reecopedia corpus of EU textile sustainability regulations.
Returns the most relevant regulatory passages with citations (source file, page, section). Answer the user's question ONLY from these passages and cite them. Corpus: ESPR 2024/1781, Digital Product Passport, CSRD, CBAM, EU ETS, CWA 18291, JRC BREF and textile preparatory studies, EP studies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The regulatory question, in any language (English works best). | |
| top_k | No | Number of passages to return (1-10, default 10). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing that the tool returns passages with source citations and listing the corpus documents, enhancing understanding of the tool's 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 concise and informative, though it includes a list of regulations which could be seen as slightly verbose. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the essential action.
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 purpose, the presence of an output schema, and clear parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, but the default parameters and schema likely handle that.
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% and parameter descriptions are clear. The tool description does not add extra parameter information, so a baseline score of 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 states the tool searches a specific corpus of EU textile sustainability regulations and returns relevant passages with citations. It lists the included regulations, distinguishing it from generic search tools like 'search' and 'find_exact_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?
The description instructs the agent to answer questions only from the returned passages and cite them, providing clear usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool.
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!