A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceNetwork diagnostics — ping, traceroute, DNS lookup, port scanning, and connectivity testing via MCP.
14
MIT
voice-quality-api
Server Details
Measure voice/VoIP path quality -> estimated MOS + live network metrics
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- Gomess8/API
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- Voice Quality API
Available Tools
1 toolmeasure_voice_qualityMeasure voice qualityAInspect
Measure the quality of a voice/VoIP path to a destination and return the estimated MOS (ITU-T G.107 E-model) plus live network metrics (RTT, jitter, packet loss). Useful before routing or starting a voice-agent call. The MOS is an objective estimate, not a perceptual measurement.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | Optional probe location selectors, e.g. ['eu-west','us-east'] | |
| codec | No | Narrowband codec to model | G711 |
| target | Yes | IP, host, or media endpoint to measure toward |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose key behavioral facts: return values and the important caveat that MOS is an objective estimate, not a perceptual measurement. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as whether test traffic is sent, or any access/rate limitations, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core action and outputs, the second gives usage context, and the third adds a necessary caveat. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 what will be returned and includes a relevant use case. The schema covers all parameter semantics. The only missing elements are explicit statements about side effects or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a moderate-complexity measurement tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Measure') and resource ('quality of a voice/VoIP path to a destination') and explicitly lists the outputs (MOS, RTT, jitter, packet loss). It is unambiguous and self-contained, with no confusion about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly states when to use the tool: 'Useful before routing or starting a voice-agent call.' There are no alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the context is specific enough to guide an agent's decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Simulation, evaluation and monitoring for voice agents.
Test the voice agents you run: scored transcripts, pass/fail verdicts, latency and WER metrics.
Coach your communication from your own recorded conversations: talk-time, questions, rapport, more.
Interact with a global network measurement platform.Run network commands from any point in the world
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceSelf-host a realtime voice-call companion for coding agents. Exposes an MCP endpoint that agents can poll as an alternate input stream.18
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that analyzes TTS audio recordings, providing transcription, quality scoring, pacing analysis, and mispronunciation detection to debug voice call center audio.4
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceExposes network-monitoring tools (query metrics, analyze windows, compare, logs, status, runbooks, speed tests) as an MCP server for agentic workflows. Designed with evaluation suites, cost-aware model routing, and semantic tool retrieval.MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
With only a single tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or misselection. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct.
Naming Consistency5/5
The sole tool uses a clear verb_noun pattern (measure_voice_quality), consistent with conventional naming and easily understandable.
Tool Count3/5
A single tool is borderline thin, but for a narrowly scoped voice-quality measurement API it is acceptable. The count feels minimal yet not egregiously inadequate.
Completeness4/5
The tool covers the core measurement task with output including MOS and network metrics. Minor gaps exist such as lack of historical data retrieval or multiple measurement configurations, but the primary intent is fulfilled.