Give your AI assistant access to real Helm chart data. No more hallucinated values.yaml files.
Get chart dependencies (sub-charts). Each dependency entry includes the dependency's repository URL — feed that URL back into search_charts, get_versions, or get_values to inspect the dependency. Supports both HTTP/HTTPS repos and OCI registries (oci://).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chart_name | Yes | Chart name (e.g. postgresql) | |
| chart_version | No | Chart version (defaults to latest) | |
| repository_url | Yes | Helm repository URL (e.g. https://charts.bitnami.com/bitnami) or OCI registry (e.g. oci://ghcr.io/traefik/helm) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | Resolved chart version (especially useful when chart_version was omitted and latest was used) |
| dependencies | Yes | Chart dependencies |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, namely that each dependency entry includes the repository URL, and that OCI registries are supported. This helps an agent understand the output shape and input compatibility. The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations are already present, and the description does not contradict them.
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 only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose, then giving actionable insight about dependencies and protocol support. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name. It is concise without sacrificing relevant 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 that the tool has a full input schema, annotations for read-only behavior, and an output schema, the description provides exactly the missing context: dependency semantics and how to use the returned URLs. The workflow is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this 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%, so the schema already fully documents chart_name, chart_version, and repository_url. The description adds workflow context about feeding returned URLs back into other tools, but it does not add parameter-level semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline of 3 for complete 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Get chart dependencies (sub-charts),' which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also differentiates this tool from sibling tools like get_values or get_versions by focusing on dependencies rather than values or versions. No ambiguity remains about what the tool operates on.
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 clear workflow context by telling the agent to feed the returned repository URLs back into search_charts, get_versions, or get_values. It also notes protocol support for HTTP/HTTPS and OCI, which helps determine valid inputs. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or give exclusions relative to siblings, but the implied context is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get chart NOTES.txt (post-install instructions). Supports both HTTP/HTTPS repos and OCI registries (oci://).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chart_name | Yes | Chart name (e.g. postgresql) | |
| chart_version | No | Chart version (defaults to latest) | |
| repository_url | Yes | Helm repository URL (e.g. https://charts.bitnami.com/bitnami) or OCI registry (e.g. oci://ghcr.io/traefik/helm) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| notes | Yes | Contents of NOTES.txt |
| version | Yes | Resolved chart version (especially useful when chart_version was omitted and latest was used) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'post-install instructions' meaning and protocol support, but does not explain response behavior, error cases, or auth requirements. This is adequate but not especially rich 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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the relevant protocol detail in the second sentence, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 read-only fetch tool with an output schema, complete schema parameter coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is fully adequate. Nothing important is missing for an agent to select and invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description's protocol note adds a little extra meaning to repository_url, but it largely repeats schema content. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not materially enhance 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get chart NOTES.txt (post-install instructions)'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_values and get_versions, which have different resources. The parenthetical also clarifies what NOTES.txt contains, leaving no ambiguity.
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 functional context: this tool is for retrieving post-install instructions as NOTES.txt, which implies when it should be used. It also states that it supports both HTTP/HTTPS repos and OCI registries, offering useful scope information. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get chart values.yaml with optional JSON schema. Uses depth limiting (default 2) to show structure without overwhelming context. Use path to drill into specific sections, depth=0 for full YAML. include_examples surfaces nearby commented YAML examples and requires path to be set. Supports both HTTP/HTTPS repos and OCI registries (oci://).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | YAML path (e.g. .ingress.enabled) | |
| depth | No | Max nesting depth (default 2, 0 for unlimited) | |
| chart_name | Yes | Chart name (e.g. postgresql) | |
| chart_version | No | Chart version (defaults to latest) | |
| example_limit | No | Maximum nearby examples to include (default 1, max 3, 0 falls back to default) | |
| show_comments | No | Preserve YAML comments | |
| show_defaults | No | Include default values | |
| include_schema | No | Include values.schema.json in response | |
| repository_url | Yes | Helm repository URL (e.g. https://charts.bitnami.com/bitnami) or OCI registry (e.g. oci://ghcr.io/traefik/helm) | |
| max_array_items | No | Max array items before truncation (default 3, 0 for unlimited) | |
| include_examples | No | Include nearby commented YAML examples for the selected path (requires path to be set) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| path | No | Extracted path, if specified |
| schema | No | JSON Schema for values (if include_schema=true and schema exists) |
| values | Yes | Values content (YAML) |
| version | Yes | Resolved chart version (especially useful when chart_version was omitted and latest was used) |
| examples | No | Nearby commented YAML examples, if include_examples=true and examples are found |
| parse_warning | No | Set when the YAML parser failed on this chart's values.yaml. The 'values' field then contains raw bytes (possibly truncated) and path/depth/include_examples/include_schema were not applied |
| schema_warning | No | Set when include_schema=true but the schema could not be retrieved; absence of this field with empty schema means the chart has no schema |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds value beyond annotations by disclosing depth limiting defaults, the meaning of depth=0, include_examples behavior, and OCI registry support. No contradiction with readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, and the read-only safety is already surfaced by 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?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences. The core purpose appears first, followed by operational guidance and registry support. No filler, repetition, or vague prose.
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 an 11-parameter tool, the description plus annotations, 100% schema coverage, and output schema make this largely complete. It provides the key behavioral caveats around depth and include_examples; the main gap is not naming sibling alternatives for other chart metadata.
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 already strong. The description adds useful context for depth, path, and repository_url including OCI behavior, while leaving other fields to 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 an exact resource: chart values.yaml, with optional inclusion of values.schema.json. This is sharply distinct from siblings like get_dependencies, get_notes, get_versions, and search_charts.
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 concrete usage guidance: use path for drilling, depth=0 for full YAML, and include_examples requires path. It does not explicitly list sibling alternatives for cases such as fetching versions or dependencies, but the in-tool guidance is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get available versions of a chart (newest first). Supports both HTTP/HTTPS repos and OCI registries (oci://). Use this to confirm a chart exists before calling get_values, or to find a specific version to pin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 20, max 100) | |
| chart_name | Yes | Chart name (e.g. postgresql) | |
| repository_url | Yes | Helm repository URL (e.g. https://charts.bitnami.com/bitnami) or OCI registry (e.g. oci://ghcr.io/traefik/helm) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Total versions available (may exceed returned results if limit applied) |
| versions | Yes | Chart versions (newest first) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavior beyond the annotations by noting that versions are returned 'newest first' and that both HTTP/HTTPS repos and OCI registries are supported. The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description complements it without 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?
The description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and ordering, then provides practical usage guidance, earning its length.
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?
This is a complete definition for a list-oriented read tool. The annotations declare read-only behavior, the output schema exists, the schema fully documents parameters, and the description explains ordering, supported repository types, and when to invoke the tool. Nothing essential is missing.
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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds some useful operational context around repository URL formats and OCI support, but it doesn't fundamentally extend parameter semantics 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get available versions of a chart.' It adds ordering behavior ('newest first') and protocol scope (HTTP/HTTPS and OCI). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_values and get_dependencies based on the unique output resource.
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 it: 'confirm a chart exists before calling get_values, or to find a specific version to pin.' It provides clear context and a concrete downstream relationship with get_values, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to all siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List or search charts in a Helm repository. Provide a repository_url, then optionally filter by keyword (e.g. keyword='postgres'). Note: OCI registries (oci://) do not support browsing — for OCI you must already know the chart name, then call get_versions or get_values directly with that name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 50, max 200) | |
| keyword | No | Filter charts by name (case-insensitive substring match, e.g. 'postgres') | |
| repository_url | Yes | Helm repository URL (e.g. https://charts.bitnami.com/bitnami) or OCI registry (e.g. oci://ghcr.io/traefik/helm) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | Total matching charts (may exceed returned results if limit applied) |
| charts | Yes | Chart names |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, so the safety-profile burden is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail not in the schema: OCI registries do not support this tool's browsing, and the user must know the chart name and call a sibling instead. It does not cover pagination or error handling, but with the output schema present, those are less critical.
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 (3 sentences), front-loads the primary purpose, and packs in a usage example plus an exception with alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of the schema.
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?
This tool is a simple search/list with a required URL and two optional params, and it has an output schema; the description covers the main purpose, the keyword usage, and the critical OCI exception. The only minor missing piece is clear guidance on what happens when an OCI URL is provided directly to this tool (e.g., error vs. skipped results), but that is not central to correct invocation. Overall, the definition is complete enough for normal 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?
All 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds beyond that with a concrete example of the keyword filter ('keyword=postgres'), which illustrates that it's a substring match. It also color how repository_url behaves differently when it's an OCI URL, meaning the rich parameter semantics are more than schema-alone 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 'List or search charts in a Helm repository' with a specific verb and resource, and the keyword example makes the search behavior concrete. The OCI note further differentiates it from the get_versions/get_values siblings, so an agent can immediately tell this is a repository-level listing tool rather than a chart-specific retrieval 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?
The description explicitly says when NOT to use the tool (OCI registries do not support this) and provides a direct alternative ('call get_versions or get_values directly'). It also gives the general usage context (provide repository_url, optionally filter by keyword). This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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.json on 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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Connect AI assistants to your GitHub-hosted Obsidian vault to seamlessly access, search, and analy…
Versioned documentation registry and semantic search for AI tools and coding assistants.
Provide your AI coding tools with token-efficient access to up-to-date technical documentation for…
Query your team's drift, vulnerability, and upgrade data from any AI assistant. OAuth 2.1, 51 tools.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: search_charts finds charts, get_versions lists versions, get_values retrieves configuration, get_notes provides post-install instructions, and get_dependencies exposes sub-charts. No overlapping functionality; boundaries are clear even for similar tasks.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores: get_dependencies, get_notes, get_values, get_versions, and search_charts. This makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for inspecting Helm charts. Each tool addresses a significant aspect of chart discovery and inspection, and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The tool surface covers the full range of chart inspection tasks: searching repositories, checking versions, retrieving values, viewing notes, and revealing dependencies. No obvious gaps for a read-only inspection server.
