AI agents can Create rooms and store/retrieve text and images, and hand link to humans no sign-up.
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 4.4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: room creation, text/image storage, item listing, deletion, password management, and room status checking. No two tools overlap in functionality; descriptions make the differences obvious.
All tool names follow a consistent kebab-case verb-noun-tool pattern (e.g., clear-room-tool, store-item-tool), making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With 9 tools, the server covers the core operations needed for a shared clipboard room without being excessive or too sparse. Each tool serves a necessary function in the workflow.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: create room, store text/images, list items, update text, delete individual/clear all items, set password, and check room status. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.
clear-room-toolClear Clippy RoomADelete ALL items in a Clippy room (and their images). Use with care — this wipes everything shared in the room and cannot be undone. The room itself continues to exist and can be reused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | The 6-character room code (or a Clippy share URL / #CODE link). | |
| password | No | Required only if the room is password-protected and you are not using owner_token. | |
| owner_token | No | Optional. The room owner_token; bypasses the password on a locked room. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The room code that was cleared. |
| cleared | Yes | Number of items that were deleted. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it discloses that images are also deleted, that the action cannot be undone, and that the room itself persists. This complements the destructiveHint annotation with specific behavioral details.
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 with no fluff. The first sentence clearly states the action and scope; the second provides critical warnings. Highly 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?
The description covers the essence: what is deleted, what remains, and the irreversible nature. With an output schema available, it does not need to detail return values. It lacks mention of errors or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.
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 parameters are fully documented there. The description adds no extra explanation about parameters, which is acceptable but does not improve understanding 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 explicitly states 'Delete ALL items in a Clippy room (and their images)', clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete-item-tool by indicating it deletes everything.
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 warning 'Use with care — this wipes everything shared in the room and cannot be undone', implying it should be used only when intentionally clearing the room. It does not explicitly name alternatives but context with siblings (e.g., delete-item-tool for single items) provides enough guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create-room-toolCreate Clippy RoomAInspectCreate a brand-new Clippy room and get back its 6-character code, a private owner_token, and a share URL. Use this when you want a fresh shared clipboard to push content to a user (hand them the URL) or to coordinate with other agents. Keep the owner_token private — it grants password control over the room.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | No | Optional. Lock the new room with this password so only holders of the password (or the owner_token) can read/write it. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Human-shareable URL that opens the room on any device. |
| code | Yes | The new 6-character room code. |
| locked | Yes | Whether the room is password-protected. |
| owner_token | Yes | Private token granting password control over the room. Keep secret. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that creation returns a code, owner_token, and URL, and that the owner_token grants password control. Lacks details on potential limits or expiration, but adequate for a creation 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?
Two sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance and a warning. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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 has output schema, description covers main returns. Sibling tools indicate context of room operations. Lacks error handling or prerequisites, but sufficient for a simple creation tool with one optional parameter.
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% (password parameter described in schema). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description of the optional password. Baseline 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?
Description clearly states it creates a new Clippy room and returns a code, owner_token, and share URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools that manage rooms in other ways (e.g., set-room-password, room-status).
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?
Explicit usage context: 'Use this when you want a fresh shared clipboard to push content to a user or to coordinate with other agents.' Also warns to keep owner_token private. No explicit exclusions for alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delete-item-toolDelete Clippy ItemADelete a single item from a Clippy room by its item id (the id returned by store-item / list-items). Any images attached to the item are removed too. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | The 6-character room code (or a Clippy share URL / #CODE link). | |
| item_id | Yes | The item id (UUID) to delete. | |
| password | No | Required only if the room is password-protected and you are not using owner_token. | |
| owner_token | No | Optional. The room owner_token; bypasses the password on a locked room. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The room code that was targeted. |
| deleted | Yes | Whether an item was actually deleted (false if it did not exist). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses two additional behaviors: that images attached to the item are also removed, and that the action cannot be undone. This adds significant behavioral context for the agent.
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-loading the core action in the first sentence and adding side effects in the second. Every word earns its place with no 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?
The description covers the main behavior (deletion, image removal, irreversibility) and references where to get the item_id. It doesn't explain error conditions or permission handling, but with an output schema present and simple semantics, this 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?
While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by specifying that the item_id is the one 'returned by store-item / list-items', which is not in the schema. It also notes images are removed, adding context not found in 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 clearly states the action ('delete a single item') and the resource ('from a Clippy room'), specifying how to identify the item by its 'item id' and referencing the id from other tools. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'single item' as opposed to clearing all items.
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 implicitly suggests usage for deleting one item via 'single item', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like clear-room-tool. It provides no exclusion criteria or comparison to siblings, 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.
list-items-toolList Clippy Room ItemsARead the items in a Clippy room (newest first). Use this to pick up text a user or another agent left for you, or to see what is currently in a shared room. Pass since (a millisecond timestamp from a previous call) to fetch only items added after that point. Image items include direct image URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | The 6-character room code (or a Clippy share URL / #CODE link). | |
| limit | No | Optional. Maximum number of items to return (1–100). Defaults to 100. | |
| since | No | Optional. Return only items created strictly after this Unix timestamp in milliseconds. Use the `now` value from a previous call to poll incrementally. | |
| password | No | Required only if the room is password-protected and you are not using owner_token. | |
| owner_token | No | Optional. The room owner_token; bypasses the password on a locked room. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| now | Yes | Server time in Unix milliseconds; pass as `since` next call to poll incrementally. |
| code | Yes | The room code that was read. |
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. |
| items | Yes | The matching items, newest first. |
| locked | Yes | Whether the room is password-protected. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds ordering, that image items contain direct URLs, and incremental polling use of `since`. 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?
Three concise sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and key usage context.
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 annotations and output schema, description covers main use cases, filtering, and image note. Could mention password/owner_token in usage but schema handles it.
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. Description adds value by explaining `since` usage and noting image URLs, aiding correct invocation.
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 uses specific verb 'Read' and resource 'items in a Clippy room' with ordering 'newest first'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like store-item-tool and delete-item-tool.
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 when to use: to pick up text or see room contents. Provides guidance on `since` for incremental polling. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
room-status-toolClippy Room StatusACheck whether a Clippy room exists, whether it is password-protected, and how many items it holds — without reading the contents. Handy before deciding to read or write, or to confirm a code a user gave you is valid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | The 6-character room code (or a Clippy share URL / #CODE link). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Human-shareable URL for the room. |
| code | Yes | The room code that was checked. |
| exists | Yes | Whether the room currently exists. |
| locked | Yes | Whether the room is password-protected. |
| itemCount | Yes | Number of items currently in the room. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds that the tool does not read contents, 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; front-loaded with main action, then usage guidance. No wasted 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?
Given the output schema exists (not shown but present), the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects for a status-checking tool, making it complete.
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%. Description adds extra context about accepted formats (URL, #CODE) beyond the schema's description, enhancing parameter 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 checks room existence, password protection, and item count without reading contents, using specific verbs and resource (room). It distinguishes from siblings like list-items-tool.
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 'handy before deciding to read or write, or to confirm a code,' providing clear context for when to use it. Does not name alternatives, but sibling list is available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
set-room-password-toolSet Clippy Room PasswordAInspectLock or unlock a Clippy room. Requires the room owner_token (returned by create-room). Pass a password to lock the room; pass an empty password to remove the lock. Only the owner can change this.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | The 6-character room code (or a Clippy share URL / #CODE link). | |
| password | No | The new password to lock the room with. Pass an empty string to remove the password and make the room open. | |
| owner_token | Yes | The room owner_token proving you own this room. Required. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The room code whose lock state changed. |
| locked | Yes | Whether the room is now password-protected. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses locking/unlocking behavior and owner restriction, but does not describe potential side effects (e.g., impact on connected users) or safety details.
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 clear, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value: purpose, method, and constraints—no 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 (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential logic. It could mention error handling, but overall sufficient for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema information (password to lock/unlock) without adding new semantic value beyond what's already in the 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 clearly states the tool locks or unlocks a Clippy room, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like room-status (read-only) or clear-room (different action) by focusing on password management.
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 explains the prerequisites (requires owner_token from create-room) and the ownership constraint ('Only the owner can change this'). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the usage context is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
store-image-toolStore Image in Clippy RoomAInspectPost one or more images (PNG, JPEG, GIF, or WEBP) to a Clippy room so they appear on every device watching it, optionally with a text caption. Pass each image as a base64 string or a data: URI. The room is created if it does not exist. Subscribed devices get a push notification. Returns the stored item, including direct URLs to fetch each image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | The 6-character room code (or a Clippy share URL / #CODE link). The room is created if new. | |
| text | No | Optional caption to store alongside the image(s). Up to 200,000 characters. | |
| device | No | Optional short label for who is posting (max 64 chars). Defaults to "AI Agent". | |
| images | Yes | One or more images, each a base64-encoded PNG/JPEG/GIF/WEBP or a data: URI (e.g. "..."). Up to 10 images, 10 MB each. | |
| password | No | Required only if the room is password-protected and you are not using owner_token. | |
| owner_token | No | Optional. The room owner_token; bypasses the password on a locked room. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Human-shareable URL that opens the room on any device. |
| code | Yes | The room code the image was stored in. |
| item | Yes | The stored item, including image URLs. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the room is created if not existing, subscribed devices get push notifications, and the return includes direct URLs. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.
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 (5 sentences, ~80 words), front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds distinct value. There is no redundancy or fluff.
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 (6 params, output schema exists, no nested objects), the description covers the main behavioral aspects: posting images, room creation, push notifications, and return format. Minor omissions like failure modes or rate limits prevent a perfect 5.
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 minimal extra meaning: it restates that images are passed as base64 or data URI, which is already in the schema. It does not clarify parameter interactions or constraints beyond what the schema 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 purpose: 'Post one or more images to a Clippy room so they appear on every device watching it, optionally with a text caption.' It also distinguishes from siblings by specifically targeting images, while a generic store-item-tool exists.
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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (to post images to a Clippy room) and provides context like room creation and push notifications. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., store-item-tool for non-image items).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
store-item-toolStore Item in Clippy RoomAInspectPost a piece of text to a Clippy room so it appears on every device and agent watching that room. The room is created automatically if it does not exist yet. Subscribed devices receive a push notification. This is how you "send" something to a user or leave a note for another agent. Returns the stored item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | The 6-character room code (or a Clippy share URL / #CODE link). The room is created if new. | |
| text | Yes | The text content to store (a snippet, link, message, etc.). Up to 200,000 characters. | |
| device | No | Optional short label for who is posting (max 64 chars). Defaults to "AI Agent" so humans can tell agent posts apart. | |
| password | No | Required only if the room is password-protected and you are not using owner_token. | |
| owner_token | No | Optional. The room owner_token; bypasses the password on a locked room. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Human-shareable URL that opens the room on any device. |
| code | Yes | The room code the item was stored in. |
| item | Yes | The stored item. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: room creation, push notifications, default device label, character limit, password/owner_token usage, and return value. No contradiction 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 succinct (one paragraph), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds useful information without 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 complexity (5 parameters, many sibling tools) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct usage and disambiguation.
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 the description adds value by explaining room format (6-character code or URL), device default ('AI Agent'), and the role of password vs owner_token. This goes 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?
The description clearly states the tool posts text to a Clippy room, distinguishing it from sibling tools like store-image-tool (for images) and update-item-tool (for modifying existing items). The verb 'store' and resource 'text to room' are 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 explains this tool is for sending messages to users or leaving notes for agents, and mentions automatic room creation and push notifications. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like store-image-tool or when to use the device label.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update-item-toolUpdate Clippy ItemAInspectEdit the text of an existing item in a Clippy room, identified by its item id (the id field returned by store-item / list-items). Image bytes are immutable; this changes only the text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room | Yes | The 6-character room code (or a Clippy share URL / #CODE link). | |
| text | Yes | The new text. For a text-only item this cannot be empty — delete it instead. | |
| item_id | Yes | The item id (UUID) to edit, as returned in the `id` field of a stored/listed item. | |
| password | No | Required only if the room is password-protected and you are not using owner_token. | |
| owner_token | No | Optional. The room owner_token; bypasses the password on a locked room. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The room code containing the item. |
| item | Yes | The updated item. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only text is editable, image bytes are immutable, and text cannot be empty for text-only items. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 well-structured sentences: first defines the action and identifier, second states the key constraint. No fluff, 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 5 parameters (100% schema coverage) and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, key behavioral constraints, and parameter semantics adequately. No missing critical information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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%, and the description enriches each parameter: 'room' includes URL formats, 'text' adds constraint about emptiness, 'item_id' clarifies it's the UUID from store/list, and 'password'/'owner_token' give conditional usage rules. This adds significant meaning 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 'Edit the text of an existing item' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like delete-item-tool and store-item-tool by focusing on text editing and immutability of image bytes.
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 when to use (edit text), references item_id from store-item/list-items, and notes that image bytes are immutable. It does not explicitly list alternatives for deleting or storing items, but context from sibling tools and the name makes this clear.
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!