Skip to main content
Glama

CuttingToolsAI Grade Cross-Reference

Server Details

Cross-brand carbide grade equivalents from verified manufacturer charts; never invents a grade.

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.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

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.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.1/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of ambiguity between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming consistency is not an issue; the name 'grade_xref' is clear and descriptive.

Tool Count3/5

The tool count of 1 is on the low side. For a cross-reference server, a single tool can be acceptable if it handles the core task, but users might expect additional utilities like grade lookup or filtering.

Completeness2/5

The server only provides a cross-referencing function. Missing features such as grade details, filtering by manufacturer, or handling of multiple comparisons create significant gaps in coverage.

Available Tools

1 tool
grade_xrefAInspect

Brand-neutral carbide grade cross-reference. Returns grades comparable at the same ISO application position, with verified vs single-source labeling. Never invents a grade.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandNoOptional brand filter, e.g. Sandvik
gradeYesCarbide grade code to look up, e.g. GC4325
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses data sourcing (brand-neutral, verified vs single-source labeling) and guarantees it never invents grades. This covers key behavioral aspects well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: cross-reference nature, return content, and trustworthiness guarantee.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, so description should specify return format. It says 'returns grades comparable' but doesn't outline structure (e.g., list of brands/grades with labels). Slight gap, but adequate for a simple lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% but description adds meaning: brand-neutral, ISO position, labeling quality, and truthfulness. This enriches understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('returns grades comparable') and resource ('carbide grade cross-reference'), with details like brand-neutrality, ISO position, and labeling. It distinguishes itself by clarifying it never invents grades.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for looking up comparable grades but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor when not to use. Since no sibling tools are listed, the lack of exclusions is acceptable but limits clarity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Servers

View all MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources