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.
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 4.1/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of ambiguity between tools.
With a single tool, naming consistency is not an issue; the name 'grade_xref' is clear and descriptive.
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.
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 toolgrade_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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brand | No | Optional brand filter, e.g. Sandvik | |
| grade | Yes | Carbide grade code to look up, e.g. GC4325 |
Tool Definition Quality
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceDeterministic industrial parts replacement engine with official catalogs and expert accuracy checksMIT
- FlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceCross-OEM industrial machine intelligence. Normalizes telemetry across 16 manufacturer families (Fanuc, Siemens, Haas, DMG Mori, Mazak), enables plain-English operational automation, and produces tamper-evident work records. 14 MCP tools.14
- FlicenseDqualityDmaintenanceEnables LLMs to accurately convert climbing grades across different rating systems using a data-driven approach.1
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceProvides vehicle wheel and tyre fitment data for 10,000+ makes, models, and trim levels through 32 read-only tools, enabling searches by vehicle, rim, or tire specifications.3257MIT