Cross-model evidence pipeline for financial filings & contracts. x402 pay-per-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 4.3/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct operation: general analysis, public filing analysis, contract risk, summarization, web extraction, translation, cost estimation, and health check. While analyze_document could overlap with specialized tools, the descriptions provide clear guidance to use the specialized tools for known domains.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (analyze_document, estimate_cost, extract_web, review_contract_risks). Minor deviations include the bare verb 'summarize' and the noun-like 'health_check', and 'delegate_bulk_translate' uses an unusual verb prefix.
8 tools is well within the typical 3-15 range, and each tool serves a distinct function that justifies its inclusion, including supporting utilities for cost estimation and health checks.
The toolset covers general analysis, specialized financial/contract analysis, summarization, web extraction, and translation. It lacks some potential operations like batch analysis or language listing, but the core workflows are supported without obvious dead ends.
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?
With readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already provided, the description adds value by describing the output nature ('source-grounded findings with evidence, confidence, verification status, and routing metadata') and hints at non-legal advisory status via parameter context. It does not contradict annotations and offers useful behavioral context beyond the safety flags.
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: purpose, output summary, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then provides key differentiators.
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 present), the description provides adequate high-level context: what it does, what it returns, and when to avoid it. It does not explain return values because the output schema exists. Minor gaps (e.g., no mention of size limits) are covered by the schema, making this description sufficient for selection and 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The main description does not add parameter-level semantics, leaving the schema to fully document parameters. This is appropriate; no additional detail is required from the description itself.
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 action ('Analyze a document') and its resource/engine (Crucible™ Evidence Engine). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly directing users to specialized financial/contract tools when the domain is known, making its general-purpose scope evident.
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 provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('Use specialized financial/contract tools when the domain is known'), implying this tool is for general document analysis when the domain is unknown. This directly addresses alternatives among sibling tools.
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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the output components (metrics, risk changes, contradictions, source evidence, confidence) and the 'not-investment-advice flag.' It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the structured hints.
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 a single, dense sentence that conveys the core purpose and key elements without excessive verbosity. It is front-loaded with the tool's identity, though the 'Crucible™' branding and lengthy return list slightly reduce tightness. Overall it earns its place, but it's not maximally economical.
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 moderately complex with 8 parameters, but schema coverage is complete and an output schema exists. The description provides a good high-level summary of inputs and outputs, and combined with schema details (like precedence notes) it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation. It could add explicit input precedence or mutual-exclusivity guidance, but this is largely covered by the schema descriptions.
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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters with descriptions. The description enumerates input modes (content, filingUrl, ticker/CIK) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the parameter documentation load.
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: 'Financial Filing Intelligence for public filings and annual reports' for specific SEC forms (10-K, 10-Q, 20-F). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_document by narrowing scope to public filings and specifying accepted input modes (content, filingUrl, ticker/CIK).
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 when to use it: for public filings and annual reports, with specific forms and input modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the mention of 'SEC ticker/CIK lookup' and specific forms gives clear context. No explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided, preventing a 5.
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?
The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: 'Preserves JSON structure, keys, and non-string values' and 'Auto-chunks large payloads.' These are not encoded in the annotations and help the agent predict how the tool operates. No contradictions 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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: what it does, key behaviors, and a typical use case. No filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 a thorough input schema, a rich set of annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and a declared output schema, the description is complete for the tool's purpose. It covers the operational essentials (translation scope, structure preservation, chunking) and leaves structured details to the schemas.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text for each. The tool description does not repeat or enhance those parameter details, but schema descriptions already define each parameter fully. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Translate all string values in a JSON object or array to any target language.' It clearly states what the tool does, distinguishes it from sibling tools (none of which handle translation), and highlights scope (bulk JSON translation). This is unambiguous and specific.
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 provides an explicit use case ('Ideal for i18n locale files'), which gives contextual guidance on when to apply the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tool names make the differentiation fairly obvious. Clear context is present, but no when-not-to-use guidance is given.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond this by stating 'FREE' and 'before paying,' clarifying that the tool is a non-executing pre-payment estimate. This is valuable context not present in annotations, though it could go further by mentioning that no actual tool execution occurs.
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 'FREE,' and every word earns its place. It states the core function and when to use it without redundancy or padding.
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 complex 7-parameter schema, high coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers purpose, usage context, and the free nature. It doesn't explain the return format, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that omission.
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 every parameter already has a description. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond implying the 'tool' and 'workflow' parameters fit the 'any tool or multi-step workflow' wording. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 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's purpose: to estimate the x402 USDC cost of any tool or multi-step workflow before paying. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('x402 USDC cost'), and distinguishes itself from analytical or processing siblings like analyze_document or summarize by focusing on pricing.
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 this before calling paid tools to check pricing,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but given no other pricing tool exists among siblings, this is sufficient. A slightly higher score would require explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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 behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the supported page types (static and server-rendered HTML) and mentioning the optional actor-critic analysis pipeline. With annotations already indicating read-only and non-destructive behavior, this additional detail about operational constraints is valuable, though it does not elaborate further on failure modes or response behavior.
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-loads the main purpose, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope and optional behavior.
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 (two parameters, one required) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential context: what it extracts, from where, and the optional analysis mode. It could be slightly more explicit about unsupported page types, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying the optional 'query' parameter to the actor-critic pipeline, clarifying that analysis is performed after extraction. This small enhancement helps the agent understand the intended workflow beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Extract content from a web page URL,' which clearly states the primary action and target. It also differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on extraction rather than analysis or summarization, and the optional actor-critic pipeline adds a distinguishing feature.
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 provides a clear usage context by stating 'Works with static and server-rendered HTML pages,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling list and the tool's purpose make the intended use reasonably clear.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'FREE' cost signal and clarifies that it checks engine availability and uptime, which is useful 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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 tool's simplicity, a single optional parameter, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool does, why it's useful, and when to invoke it without needing to cover return formats.
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% for the single parameter 'verbose,' and the schema already explains its meaning. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check service health, engine availability, and uptime.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like analyze_document or summarize, which focus on content analysis rather than operational readiness.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use before dispatching paid calls to confirm the service is operational.' This clearly states when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, which would push it to a 5.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying extraction outputs (risk clauses, evidence, human-review flags) and includes a 'Not legal advice' disclaimer, which helps an agent set expectations beyond 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 composed of three short, front-loaded sentences: document types, extraction outputs, and legal disclaimer. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler 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?
With a rich output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use the tool and what it will return. The domain, outputs, and legal caveat are all covered, leaving parameter details to the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details; it only repeats general contract-review features. The schema already handles parameter meaning.
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 with specific verb and resource: 'Contract Risk Intelligence' for contracts, MSAs, NDAs, etc., and details outputs like 'Extracts risk clauses, obligations, deadlines, liability exposure...' This distinguishes it from generic siblings like analyze_document and analyze_public_filing.
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 gives clear context by enumerating applicable document types ('contracts, MSAs, NDAs, procurement agreements, and compliance documents'), which implicitly tells an agent when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.
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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it produces key points and is faster/cheaper, but this is more about usage than novel behavioral traits. No contradictions, but limited additional transparency 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 extremely concise, with two sentences that convey purpose and usage guidance without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word 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?
The tool has a single required parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema. The short description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly, and no additional context 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 description coverage is 100%, with both content and max_length already documented. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 generates a concise summary with key points, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tool analyze_document, making its intended function unambiguous.
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 when to use this tool ('best for shorter documents') and directly compares it with analyze_document as a cheaper and faster alternative, providing clear selection guidance.
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!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.
