Amalgix
Server Details
Cross-model evidence pipeline for financial filings & contracts. x402 pay-per-call.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- Amalgix-io/Amalgix
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 4.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyze_document for deep analysis, summarize for concise summaries, extract_web for web pages, delegate_bulk_translate for JSON translation, estimate_cost for pricing, health_check for service status. No overlapping functionality.
Naming pattern is inconsistent: most tools follow verb_noun (analyze_document, estimate_cost, extract_web), but health_check is noun_noun and summarize is a single verb. This mix of conventions creates a lack of predictability.
With 6 tools, the server covers a reasonable set of capabilities (document analysis, translation, web extraction, cost estimation, health check). The count feels appropriate for the scope, neither too sparse nor overloaded.
The toolset covers core document processing and translation needs, but lacks tools for file management, batch processing, or configuration. Minor gaps exist, but agents can work around them for most use cases.
Available Tools
8 toolsanalyze_documentAnalyze DocumentARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Analyze 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. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | Processing metadata |
| analysis | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: third-party LLM processing, privacy notice about sensitive data, and that output is evidence triage not legal advice. 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 main description is two sentences, concise and to the point. Parameter descriptions are structured but the privacy notice inside a parameter description adds length. Could be slightly more streamlined but still effective.
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, 1 required), output schema presence, and thorough parameter descriptions, the description is fairly complete. It covers output structure, routing metadata, and usage constraints. Minor room for improvement in explaining relationship with siblings.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains fileUrl overrides content, mentions size limits (20MB), describes Base64 encoding with data URI prefix, and includes privacy notice. This enhances understanding.
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: analyzing documents using Crucible™ Evidence Engine and returning source-grounded findings. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_public_filing and review_contract_risks by advising to use specialized tools when the domain is known.
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 this tool (general document analysis) and when not (financial/contract domain), directing to specialized alternatives. This provides clear guidance for the AI agent.
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 FilingARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Crucible™ 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. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| analysis | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns metrics, risk changes, contradictions, source evidence, confidence, and a not-investment-advice flag, which enriches the understanding 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outputs. It is concise, though the brand name 'Crucible™' is minor noise. 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?
Given the complexity (8 optional params, output schema, annotations), the description covers core inputs, outputs, and the not-investment-advice flag for compliance. It is complete for typical use, though edge cases (e.g., no input) are not addressed.
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 all parameters described. The description groups inputs by mode (content, filingUrl, or ticker/CIK) but does not add significant new 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 the tool analyzes public filings (10-K, 10-Q, 20-F) using ticker/CIK lookup or content/URL, with specific outputs. It distinguishes from sibling 'analyze_document' by focusing on SEC filings and financial intelligence.
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 lists input options (content, filingUrl, ticker/CIK) and implies ordering, but does not directly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use. Clear context is provided, but no exclusions.
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 TranslatorARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Translate 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") |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | No | Translation metadata |
| translated | Yes | Translated JSON with preserved structure |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses auto-chunking for large payloads and preservation of keys/non-strings, adding value beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, not 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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource.
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 translation tool with good annotations and output schema, description covers core behavior, chunking, and typical use case. Complete for agent invocation.
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?
Adds value beyond schema: clarifies default for preserve_keys (true) and source_language auto-detect. Schema already covers all 4 parameters with 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?
Description clearly states it translates string values in JSON objects/arrays, preserving structure. Distinguishes from siblings like analyze_document or summarize, which have no translation capability.
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 states ideal for i18n locale files, giving clear context. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but siblings are unrelated so guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
estimate_costEstimate CostARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
FREE: 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. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | Pricing explanation |
| estimates | Yes | Cost estimates per tool |
| available_tools | Yes | List of available paid tools |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is 'FREE' and estimates cost, providing useful behavioral context 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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with 'FREE' and clear action. 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?
Given 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema existing, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains purpose and usage. Could mention that output is a cost estimate but output schema covers 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% so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, just mentions multi-step workflow which is already documented.
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 x402 USDC cost, uses a specific verb 'estimate', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_document that perform different functions.
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 'Use this before calling paid tools to check pricing', giving direct guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
extract_webExtract Web ContentBRead-onlyInspect
Extract 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 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | No | Extraction metadata |
| content | Yes | Extracted page content in markdown format |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open world. Description adds limitation to static/server-rendered HTML pages. No mention of dynamic JavaScript handling or rate limits. Adds some value beyond annotations but not comprehensive.
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, first defines core purpose, second adds technical detail. No fluff, front-loaded, 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?
With output schema existing, description needn't detail return format, but it lacks mention of error handling, authentication, or nuances of extraction (e.g., encoding, CSS rendering). Adequate but not full.
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 context: 'actor-critic pipeline' for query parameter and page compatibility for URL parameter. This provides meaningful additional detail beyond the schema 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?
Description clearly states verb (extract), resource (web page content), and optional analysis via actor-critic pipeline. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on web pages and unique pipeline, but could be more specific about content type (e.g., text vs HTML).
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 vs alternatives like analyze_document or summarize. Implicit usage for web content extraction, but no exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkHealth CheckARead-onlyInspect
FREE: 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) |
Output Schema
| 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by noting it's free and checks health, but doesn't elaborate on behavior beyond that.
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: first defines purpose, second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage. The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so no additional explanation is needed.
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% for the single parameter 'verbose', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter 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 tool's purpose with specific verb 'check' and resources 'service health, engine availability, and uptime'. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like analyze_document or estimate_cost.
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 advises to use before dispatching paid calls to confirm operational status, providing clear when-to-use guidance without any exclusions.
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 RisksARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Crucible™ 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. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | Yes | |
| analysis | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds context by listing specific risk elements extracted (e.g., liability exposure, missing terms) and clarifying it is not legal advice. This meaningfully supplements the 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 three concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose. No redundant or superfluous information; every sentence contributes 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?
For a tool with 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could mention typical use cases or limitations relative to siblings, but it is adequate for basic understanding.
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 does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., depth, focus, format). The description's generic mention of what is extracted does not relate directly to 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 extracts risk clauses, obligations, and other contract elements, specifying contract types (MSAs, NDAs, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_document or summarize.
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 includes a disclaimer 'Not legal advice' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_document). Usage is implied by the tool's specific purpose, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
summarizeSummarize DocumentARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Generate 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) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| meta | No | Processing metadata |
| summary | Yes | Concise summary text |
| keyPoints | No | Bullet-point key takeaways |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive action. The description adds value by mentioning performance characteristics (faster and cheaper), which is relevant and consistent 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficient and well-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?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the presence of an output schema (as indicated in context signals), and rich annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It could potentially mention the output format briefly, but it is not necessary due to the output schema.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It mentions 'key points' but does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 function ('Generate a concise summary with key points') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'analyze_document' by noting it is 'faster and cheaper — best for shorter documents', providing a specific verb and resource.
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 recommends the tool for shorter documents and contrasts it with analyze_document, offering clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or address other alternatives.
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!