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 4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clear and distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool name 'grade_xref' follows a clear pattern (noun_abbreviation) and is consistent within itself.

Tool Count2/5

One tool is minimal for a server; while a cross-reference service may be narrow, typical MCP servers offer more tools (3-15) to provide broader functionality.

Completeness3/5

The tool covers the core cross-reference purpose, but lacks supporting operations like listing available grades or adding new references, which could be expected.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are labeled as verified vs single-source and that the tool never invents grades, which adds useful behavioral context beyond a typical lookup.

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?

The description is three sentences with no waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides key details about output labeling and constraints.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return characteristics, and behavioral constraints. It could mention possible output structure or handling of missing results, but is generally complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'brand' is optional and 'grade' is the lookup key, and adds context about cross-referencing at same ISO position, but does not significantly augment 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 clearly states the tool performs a brand-neutral carbide grade cross-reference, returns comparable grades at the same ISO application position with verified vs single-source labeling, and explicitly says it never invents a grade. This is specific and distinguishes it from generic search tools.

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 use when needing carbide grade cross-references but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Without sibling tools, it offers no comparative guidance.

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!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources