Query 692+ compliance frameworks, 13,700+ controls, and 280K+ cross-framework mappings.
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 4/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: framework discovery, control details, mapping, coverage, platform stats, pricing, and search. No overlapping functionality.
All tools share the 'agent_' prefix and use descriptive snake_case names, but some follow 'agent_get_*' pattern while others like 'agent_coverage_report' omit the verb. Still consistent enough.
10 tools is well-scoped for a compliance intelligence API. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without being too few or too many.
The tool set covers the core domain comprehensively: framework search, details, controls, cross-framework mappings, coverage reports, and platform stats. No obvious gaps for a read-only API.
agent_coverage_reportBInspectGet cross-framework coverage report for a framework
Returns a coverage analysis showing how many controls in the given framework map to controls in every other framework. Includes total controls, mapped control counts, and coverage percentages per target framework. Use this to understand which frameworks overlap most and plan multi-framework strategies.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the response type but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. The description is adequate 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?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value. It avoids unnecessary details while providing essential 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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return fields and use case. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's scope.
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 description mentions 'given framework' but does not elaborate on the 'name' parameter beyond its role. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add more semantic meaning, which it does not.
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 retrieves a cross-framework coverage report for a framework, explaining the output includes mapped controls and percentages. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'agent_cross_framework_map', which could be ambiguous.
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?
It advises use for understanding framework overlap and planning multi-framework strategies. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_cross_framework_mapAInspectMap controls between two compliance frameworks
Returns the complete control-to-control mapping between a source and target framework. Each mapping shows which source control maps to which target control(s). This enables multi-framework compliance: satisfy one control to cover requirements in both frameworks. Use exact framework names as returned by agent_search_frameworks.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Source framework name (e.g. 'ISO 27001:2022') | |
| target | Yes | Target framework name (e.g. 'NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return structure (complete mapping with source-to-target references) and indicates a 200 success response. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only mapping, that is acceptable.
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 concise with no wasted words, includes a summary, details, usage note, and response section. 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the response content (complete mapping, each mapping showing source to target controls). It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for a simple mapping 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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds value by specifying to use exact framework names from agent_search_frameworks, providing context beyond 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 maps controls between two compliance frameworks, returns complete mappings, and is distinct from sibling tools like agent_get_control_cross_references. It uses specific verbs and resources.
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 advises using exact framework names as returned by agent_search_frameworks, and explains the benefit of multi-framework compliance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_get_controlAInspectGet detailed information about a specific control
Returns full details for a single control by its code identifier: title, description, domain, and framework. Control codes are framework-specific (e.g. 'A.5.1' for ISO 27001, 'AC-1' for NIST 800-53).
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states what is returned (title, description, domain, framework) and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the code is invalid.
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 concise with a clear opening sentence. It includes a 'Responses' section that adds useful information without redundancy. Every sentence contributes, and there is no wasted text.
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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the return fields (title, description, domain, framework). It covers the main purpose, but lacks details on error responses and exact JSON structure, which is acceptable for a simple single-resource get 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'code' parameter. The description adds significant value by specifying control codes are framework-specific and providing examples (e.g., 'A.5.1' for ISO 27001, 'AC-1' for NIST 800-53), which helps the agent format input correctly.
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 action 'Get detailed information' and the resource 'a specific control' by code identifier. It distinguishes from siblings that list controls or search, but does not explicitly contrast them.
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 agent_get_framework_controls or agent_search. The description only gives example codes but lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_get_control_cross_referencesAInspectGet cross-framework mappings for a control
Returns all controls in other frameworks that map to the given control via MAPS_TO relationships. This is the core cross-framework mapping capability: use it to find equivalent controls across different compliance frameworks (e.g. NIST 800-53 equivalents of ISO 27001 controls).
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the mapping logic and relationship type, but does not disclose any side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or error handling.
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?
Front-loaded with action, short paragraphs. The response section is somewhat redundant (just states 200 response), but overall 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?
Covers purpose and use case well, but misses details on input parameter and output structure. Lacks error handling or response format beyond 'Success Response.' For a simple tool, moderately complete but with gaps.
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 only parameter 'code' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explicitly define what 'code' refers to (e.g., control identifier), leaving its meaning ambiguous.
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 retrieves cross-framework mappings for a control and explains the MAPS_TO relationships, distinguishing it from sibling tools like agent_get_control or agent_cross_framework_map.
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 use case with an example (NIST 800-53 equivalents of ISO 27001 controls), but does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_get_frameworkAInspectGet detailed information about a compliance framework
Returns comprehensive details about a specific compliance framework: description, jurisdiction, version, domains with control counts, and cross-framework mapping statistics. Use the exact framework name as returned by agent_search_frameworks.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get detailed information') and describes the success response. However, it does not disclose authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects, though none are expected for a get tool.
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 front-loaded with the action, includes a bullet list of return info, and a response section. It is relatively concise, though the response formatting could be trimmed.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the return content and sources the parameter value. The lack of output schema is partially mitigated by listing return fields. Sibling tools are present but not deeply explained.
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 single parameter 'name' has 0% schema coverage, but the description adds critical meaning: 'Use the exact framework name as returned by agent_search_frameworks'. This tells the agent how to acquire the correct value, which is valuable 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 gets detailed information about a compliance framework, listing specific return fields (description, jurisdiction, version, domains with control counts, cross-framework mapping statistics). It distinguishes from siblings like agent_search_frameworks by focusing on retrieving comprehensive details for a single framework.
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 instructs to use the exact framework name from agent_search_frameworks, providing a clear prerequisite and indirectly recommending search first. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if only needing controls).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_get_framework_controlsAInspectGet all controls for a compliance framework
Returns all controls belonging to a framework, optionally filtered by domain. Each control includes: code, title, description, and domain. For large frameworks (e.g. NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5), use the domain filter to narrow results.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| domain | No | Filter controls by domain name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the action as retrieving data (non-destructive) and specifies the return fields (code, title, description, domain). It does not mention pagination or limits, but 'get all' implies a complete list.
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 concise with two paragraphs covering purpose, return fields, and a usage hint. The response section adds minor clutter but does not significantly detract.
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 straightforward retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and return format. It could clarify what constitutes a 'domain' and that name is required, but overall it is 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 50%; name lacks a description but the tool's name implies it's the framework name. Domain has a schema description and the description adds context on its optional filtering use. The tool's return structure is described, but not the parameter formats or constraints.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all controls for a compliance framework'. It distinguishes from siblings like agent_get_control (single control) and agent_get_framework (framework details) by focusing on listing multiple controls.
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 advises using the domain filter for large frameworks, which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives when a single control or framework details are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_platform_statsAInspectGet platform statistics
Returns current platform statistics: total framework count, control count, cross-framework mapping count, and domain count. No authentication required.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry burden. It mentions returned fields and no auth, but lacks details on side effects or limits.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous 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?
For a parameterless stats endpoint, description is adequate. Could add context on what the statistics represent, but not necessary.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4. Description adds value by listing returned fields, which is sufficient.
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 returns platform statistics with specific counts. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual entities or searches.
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?
States that no authentication is required, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives. However, the purpose is straightforward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_pricing_infoAInspectGet API pricing and rate limit information
Returns current API pricing tiers, monthly call limits, and (if authenticated) your current month's usage. Use this to understand costs before making API calls.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully explains the tool's behavior: it returns pricing info, is read-only, and includes conditional authenticated usage. No side effects or destructive actions are implied, and since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden effectively.
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 well-structured with two concise paragraphs and a responses section. Every sentence provides value without redundancy, and the front-loaded purpose is immediately clear.
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 (zero parameters, no output schema), the description provides all necessary context: what is returned, authentication-dependent info, and a usage hint. It is fully complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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?
There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per scoring rules. The description does not need to add parameter information, and schema coverage is trivially 100%.
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 retrieves API pricing and rate limit information, with specific resources: pricing tiers, call limits, and usage. It is distinct from sibling tools which involve reports, frameworks, and searches.
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?
It explicitly advises to use this tool 'to understand costs before making API calls', providing clear context. Although it doesn't mention when not to use, the tool is simple enough that an alternative is not required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_searchAInspectFull-text search across controls and frameworks
Search the compliance knowledge graph using full-text search. Type 'controls' searches control titles and descriptions. Type 'frameworks' searches framework names and descriptions. Use specific compliance terms for best results (e.g. 'access control', 'encryption at rest', 'data breach notification').
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Search type: 'controls' for control titles/descriptions, 'frameworks' for framework names/descriptions | controls |
| limit | No | Maximum results to return | |
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g. 'access control', 'encryption at rest') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it is a full-text search and mentions response status codes, but it omits details about destructiveness, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior on empty results. The description is adequate but not rich.
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 plus a response section. The response block adds some structure but is not essential and can be considered verbose for the given purpose. It could be more concise.
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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it lacks details about return format, error handling, or limits beyond the schema, making it marginally 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 coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of the 'type' parameter and providing example queries, which goes beyond the schema's 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 performs full-text search across controls and frameworks, explaining how the 'type' parameter distinguishes between searching control titles/descriptions vs framework names/descriptions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'agent_search_frameworks'.
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 implicit usage guidance by suggesting specific compliance terms, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'agent_search_frameworks', which appears to be a more restricted version. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
agent_search_frameworksAInspectSearch and list compliance frameworks
Search the compliance knowledge graph for frameworks by name, keyword, or jurisdiction. Returns framework metadata including name, description, jurisdiction, domain count, control count, and mapping-partner count. Without a query, returns all frameworks. Use this as the starting point to discover available frameworks.
200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search query to filter by name or keyword (e.g. 'ISO 27001', 'privacy', 'Australian') | |
| limit | No | Maximum frameworks to return | |
| jurisdiction | No | Filter by jurisdiction (e.g. 'International', 'Australia', 'United States', 'European Union') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It accurately describes the search behavior and returned data but omits details like rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), or error responses. It is adequate 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?
The description is relatively concise, with key information in a few sentences. However, the inclusion of a 'Responses' section with a 200 status line is unnecessary and adds clutter without useful detail.
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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: search behavior, return fields, and parameter usage. It does not address error scenarios or detailed output format, but it is sufficient for basic use.
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 three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema (e.g., examples in 'q' description are already in the schema). The response section is redundant.
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: search and list compliance frameworks. It specifies the search criteria (name, keyword, jurisdiction) and the returned metadata fields, making it distinct from sibling tools.
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 indicates this is the starting point for discovering frameworks and notes that omitting the query returns all frameworks. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like agent_get_framework or mention when not to use it.
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!
