Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Measure voice/VoIP path quality -> estimated MOS + live network metrics

Status
Unhealthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

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.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.1/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or confusion between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool ensures perfect naming consistency, as there is only one name to evaluate.

Tool Count4/5

One tool is slightly below the typical range but is well-scoped for measuring voice quality, making it reasonable for a focused API.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers the core functionality of measuring voice quality with key metrics, though additional features like history or configuration are absent.

Available Tools

1 tool
measure_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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNoOptional probe location selectors, e.g. ['eu-west','us-east']
codecNoNarrowband codec to modelG711
targetYesIP, host, or media endpoint to measure toward
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the MOS is an objective estimate and returns network metrics. It does not mention potential side effects (none expected) or prerequisites, which is acceptable for a read-like measurement tool.

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: first describes the action and return, second gives usage guidance, third provides a caveat. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 the return values (MOS, RTT, jitter, packet loss). Parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the tool's purpose and context are fully covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema; it only mentions 'target' implicitly in the main action. No extra value is provided over the structured input schema.

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 clearly states the tool measures voice quality of a VoIP path and returns specific metrics (MOS, RTT, jitter, packet loss). It uses a specific verb 'Measure' and resource, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Useful before routing or starting a voice-agent call.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, though no siblings exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources