Mixture-of-Agents document intelligence engine. Multiple AI models cross-verify each other for 100% recall across 10 languages. 6 tools (analyze_document, extract_web, summarize, delegate_bulk_translate, estimate_cost, health_check). USDC pay-per-call on Base or Solana via x402. From $0.08/call.
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 4.2/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
Each tool targets a distinct domain or action: document analysis, financial filings, contract review, translation, web extraction, summarization, cost estimation, and health check. Overlap is minimal and explicitly disambiguated in descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., analyze_document, extract_web), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a general-purpose AI toolkit, covering analysis, translation, extraction, summarization, and utilities without excess or deficiency.
The tool surface covers core workflows for document analysis, filings, contracts, translation, web extraction, and summarization. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for editing or managing stored analyses), but the set is complete for its intended purpose.
analyze_documentAnalyze DocumentAAnalyze a document using Crucible™ Evidence Engine. Returns source-grounded findings with evidence, confidence, verification status, and routing metadata. Use specialized financial/contract tools when the domain is known.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Analysis question or focus area | |
| format | No | Optional: Force a specific input format. Default: auto-detect via magic bytes. | |
| ticker | No | Optional ticker/company symbol metadata for financial filing analysis. | |
| content | No | Document content to analyze (max 20MB). Required unless fileUrl is provided. Accepts: (1) plain text, (2) Base64-encoded file with data URI prefix (e.g., "data:application/pdf;base64,..."), or (3) raw Base64 binary for text-extractable source documents. PRIVACY NOTICE: Content is transmitted to third-party LLM providers for processing. Do NOT submit documents containing passwords, private keys, SSNs, or other regulated PII. | |
| fileUrl | No | Optional: HTTPS URL to download the document from. If provided, content field is ignored. Use text-extractable source documents. Max 20MB. | |
| sourceType | No | Optional source type metadata for Crucible™ routing and output metadata. | |
| analysisType | No | Optional Crucible™ analysis mode. Default: auto. | |
| jurisdiction | No | Optional contract jurisdiction metadata. Output remains evidence triage, not legal advice. | |
| partyPerspective | No | Optional contract review perspective. Default: neutral. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | Processing metadata |
| analysis | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (evidence, confidence, verification status, routing metadata) and including a privacy notice about third-party LLM processing, which goes beyond annotation information.
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 with clear front-loading: first sentence states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, highly 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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, output structure, usage guidance, and a privacy warning. It does not repeat schema details, which is appropriate. It could optionally mention the 20MB limit or supported formats, but those are in schema. Overall adequate.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description provides a global usage hint but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The output description indirectly relates to query but not to individual parameters.
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 analyzes documents using the Crucible Evidence Engine and specifies the return type (source-grounded findings with evidence, confidence, etc.). It also advises using specialized tools when the domain is known, distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_public_filing and review_contract_risks.
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 says 'Use specialized financial/contract tools when the domain is known,' providing direct guidance on when not to use this tool and pointing to alternatives. It implies general usage for unknown domains but could be more specific about when to use this tool versus others like extract_web or summarize.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
analyze_public_filingAnalyze Public FilingACrucible™ Financial Filing Intelligence for public filings and annual reports. Accepts content, filingUrl, or SEC ticker/CIK lookup for 10-K, 10-Q, and 20-F filings. Returns metrics, risk changes, contradictions, source evidence, confidence, and a not-investment-advice flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK. Optional alternative to ticker. | |
| form | No | SEC filing form. Default: 10-K. | |
| year | No | Filing or report year. Omit for latest matching filing. | |
| depth | No | Analysis depth hint. Default: standard. | |
| ticker | No | Ticker symbol, e.g. AAPL. Used to resolve SEC filings when content/filingUrl is omitted. | |
| content | No | Uploaded or preprocessed filing text. Used before URL/ticker lookup when provided. | |
| question | No | Optional focus question for the filing analysis. | |
| filingUrl | No | Public filing/report URL. Used before ticker lookup when provided. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| analysis | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds value by explaining the return fields (metrics, risk changes, contradictions, source evidence, confidence, not-investment-advice flag) and the input precedence (content > filingUrl > ticker lookup). No contradiction with 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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no filler. It front-loads the tool's brand and purpose, then efficiently lists inputs and outputs. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a tool with 8 optional parameters and no required ones, the description covers the main input patterns and output fields. The output schema exists to detail return values. Minor gap: it does not mention that year and form default to latest, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's capabilities.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the precedence of input methods (content first, then filingUrl, then ticker/CIK) and the accepted form types, which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand how to choose among the many optional parameters.
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 identifies the tool as 'Crucible™ Financial Filing Intelligence for public filings and annual reports'. It specifies the accepted input methods (content, filingUrl, ticker/CIK) and the specific filing forms (10-K, 10-Q, 20-F), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'analyze_document' that handles general documents.
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 states the tool is for public filings and annual reports, and lists the accepted input methods, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the specificity of financial filings makes usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delegate_bulk_translateBulk JSON TranslatorATranslate all string values in a JSON object or array to any target language. Preserves JSON structure, keys, and non-string values. Auto-chunks large payloads. Ideal for i18n locale files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| json | Yes | JSON string (object or array) whose string values will be translated | |
| preserve_keys | No | If true (default), object keys are left untranslated. Set false to also translate keys. | |
| source_language | No | Source language (default: auto-detect). E.g. "English", "en" | |
| target_language | Yes | Target language name or ISO 639-1 code (e.g. "Chinese", "zh", "Japanese", "ja", "fr") |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | No | Translation metadata |
| translated | Yes | Translated JSON with preserved structure |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: 'Preserves JSON structure, keys, and non-string values. Auto-chunks large payloads.' It does not contradict annotations, and adds context beyond what annotations provide.
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 extremely concise (3 sentences) and front-loads the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating what it does, how it behaves, and when to use it. 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?
Given the rich input schema (100% parameter coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, behavioral traits, and use case. An agent can confidently decide when to invoke this 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?
All 4 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining overall behavior (auto-chunking, preservation of structure) and the intended use case (i18n files), complementing the schema's detailed per-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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Translate all string values in a JSON object or array to any target language.' It specifies the verb (translate) and resource (JSON strings), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., analyze_document, extract_web) which are unrelated to translation.
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 states the ideal use case: 'Ideal for i18n locale files.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings, which would improve the score to 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
estimate_costEstimate CostAFREE: Estimate the x402 USDC cost of any tool or multi-step workflow before paying. Use this before calling paid tools to check pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | Tool name to estimate cost for (e.g. "analyze_document", "extract_web", "summarize") | |
| depth | No | Workflow depth hint for filing/contract tools. Default: standard | |
| query | No | Optional analysis query. Include it for exhaustive/high-output requests so the preview matches the x402 quote. | |
| workflow | No | Optional list of tool names for a multi-step workflow. Returns total cost for the full pipeline. | |
| input_source | No | Input source hint used to explain cache/download behavior | |
| content_length | No | Approximate character count of your input document (used for LLM cost estimation) | |
| content_sample | No | Optional short content excerpt for multilingual/high-output pricing hints without sending the full document. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | Pricing explanation |
| estimates | Yes | Cost estimates per tool |
| available_tools | Yes | List of available paid tools |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'FREE' and 'before paying', reinforcing the non-destructive, cost-free nature. 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?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE', and every word adds value. Extremely concise with no redundancy.
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 complexity (7 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and cost estimation nature. It doesn't detail return format but output schema handles that. Appropriate for the 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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 estimates the x402 USDC cost for any tool or multi-step workflow, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are paid or serve different purposes.
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 advises to 'Use this before calling paid tools to check pricing', providing clear guidance on when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
extract_webExtract Web ContentAExtract content from a web page URL, optionally analyzing it with the actor-critic pipeline. Works with static and server-rendered HTML pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Web page URL to extract content from | |
| query | No | Optional analysis question to apply after extraction |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | No | Extraction metadata |
| content | Yes | Extracted page content in markdown format |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions the optional actor-critic pipeline and compatibility with static/server-rendered HTML. However, it does not disclose important traits such as error handling, rate limits, or how the analysis modifies behavior. Given that annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description provides moderate added value.
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 consists of two concise sentences with no filler. The most critical information (extract content from URL) appears first, and the optional analysis is introduced naturally. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
For a tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and adds useful context about supported page types. It lacks details on error handling, timeouts, or return format, but these are partially addressed by the output schema and annotations. Overall, it is largely 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to repeat parameter definitions. However, it adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by linking it to the 'actor-critic pipeline', which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Optional analysis question'. This clarifies intent and usage.
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: extracting content from a web page URL, with an optional analysis step. It specifies the resource (web page), the action (extract), and the context (static/server-rendered HTML). This gives a precise understanding without ambiguity.
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 like analyze_document or summarize. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkHealth CheckAFREE: Check service health, engine availability, and uptime. Use before dispatching paid calls to confirm the service is operational.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No | If true, include detailed per-engine diagnostics (default: false) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | Overall service status |
| timestamp | Yes | ISO 8601 timestamp |
| engines_ok | Yes | Whether all engines are operational |
| uptime_seconds | Yes | Server uptime in seconds |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive indication. The description adds that the tool is FREE and used for pre-checking, which augments the safety profile. 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?
Two concise sentences with the key benefit ('FREE') upfront. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 (one optional param) with full annotation and output schema. The description covers purpose, cost implication, and usage timing, making it complete for an agent to use 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (one optional 'verbose' parameter with description). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 'Check service health, engine availability, and uptime,' which directly and specifically identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools because none of them are health-check related.
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 advises 'Use before dispatching paid calls to confirm the service is operational,' providing clear contextual guidance. While it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, the advice is strong and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
review_contract_risksReview Contract RisksACrucible™ Contract Risk Intelligence for contracts, MSAs, NDAs, procurement agreements, and compliance documents. Extracts risk clauses, obligations, deadlines, liability exposure, missing terms, unusual clauses, evidence, and human-review flags. Not legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Analysis depth hint. Default: standard. | |
| focus | No | Optional focus area for the contract review. | |
| query | No | Optional focus area. Default reviews payment, termination, liability, confidentiality, jurisdiction, renewal, obligations, deadlines, missing terms, and evidence. | |
| format | No | Optional input format override. Default: auto. | |
| content | No | Contract, MSA, NDA, procurement agreement, vendor agreement, compliance document, or Base64 file content. Required unless fileUrl is provided. | |
| fileUrl | No | Optional HTTPS URL to a public contract/document file. Max 20MB. | |
| sourceType | No | Optional source type metadata. Default: text or file_url. | |
| contractType | No | Contract type hint. Default: other. | |
| jurisdiction | No | Optional jurisdiction metadata. Output is evidence triage and not legal advice. | |
| partyPerspective | No | Review perspective for risk triage. Default: neutral. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| analysis | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, listing extracted elements (risk clauses, obligations, etc.) and clarifying non-legal advice. Annotations already indicate safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). No contradiction.
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 efficiently convey purpose and caveat. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.
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?
Description adequately summarizes tool function given the existence of a comprehensive output schema and full parameter descriptions. Could briefly mention that content can be provided via text or URL, but not essential.
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%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description does not elaborate on parameters, relying fully on schema for semantics.
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 it's for contract risk analysis and lists specific documents and extracted items. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'analyze_document', which could cause ambiguity.
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 like 'analyze_document' or 'extract_web'. The description fails to provide context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
summarizeSummarize DocumentAGenerate a concise summary with key points. Faster and cheaper than analyze_document — best for shorter documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Document text to summarize | |
| max_length | No | Optional maximum summary length in words (default: 500) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | No | Processing metadata |
| summary | Yes | Concise summary text |
| keyPoints | No | Bullet-point key takeaways |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and not destructive. Description adds performance traits (faster/cheaper) which are beyond annotations but not strictly behavioral. Still useful context.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, 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?
For a simple tool with annotations and complete schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and performance. Lacks minor details like supported formats, but sufficient.
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 good descriptions for both parameters. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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?
Clearly states it generates a concise summary with key points. Differentiates from sibling analyze_document by noting it's faster/cheaper and for shorter documents.
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?
Explicitly says 'Faster and cheaper than analyze_document — best for shorter documents,' providing clear context on when to use vs. the alternative.
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!
