Ranks the best AI tool or API per task: transcription, TTS, web search, scraping and OCR.
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 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and unique.
The single tool uses a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern ('find_best_tool'), which is predictable and readable even though there is only one tool.
One tool is on the borderline of feeling thin, but it serves a single, well-defined purpose. Still, a server with one tool feels minimal and could benefit from additional related tools.
The tool completely covers its stated scope, handling multiple categories (transcription, TTS, web search, scraping, OCR) with optional category disambiguation. There are no obvious missing operations within its intended purpose.
find_best_toolAInspectGiven a natural-language question about which AI tool or API is best for a task (currently transcription, text-to-speech, web search, scraping & browser and ocr & document extraction), return Syftly's ranked recommendation: a citeable summary, a provider table with prices and trade-offs, dated sources, and a confidence label. Ask in plain English about price, accuracy, language or capability trade-offs — e.g. 'best OCR API for scanned PDFs' or 'best web scraping API for JavaScript-heavy sites'. Optionally pass "category" to disambiguate; otherwise it is detected from the question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The question in natural language, e.g. 'best transcription API for Dutch'. | |
| category | No | Optional category id to disambiguate the question; omit to let Syftly detect it. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | |
| query | Yes | The human question (page H1). |
| routing | Yes | Honest routing outcome: 'matched' = answered from a real category; 'none' = no category matched (out-of-scope/gibberish) — an honest no-match, not a fabricated answer; 'ambiguous' = fit 2+ categories. 'none'/'ambiguous' carry `categories` and no real recommendation/providers. |
| sources | Yes | |
| summary | Yes | Citeable summary, 40-80 words, reused verbatim across all views. On a no-match, the plain-language message. |
| updated | Yes | ISO date. |
| category | Yes | e.g. 'transcription'; '' on a no-match. |
| providers | Yes | |
| categories | No | Present only when routing !== 'matched': the supported categories so the caller can re-ask in scope. |
| confidence | Yes | Confidence/depth label. |
| recommendation | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well: it explains that the tool returns a ranked recommendation, citeable summary, provider table with prices/trade-offs, dated sources, and a confidence label. It also discloses that category detection is automatic unless the optional category parameter is passed. It stops short of describing edge-case behavior (e.g., unsupported categories or unknown questions), but the core runtime behavior is transparent.
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 a single compact paragraph with three purposeful sentences: what it does and returns, how to phrase queries with examples, and how the optional category parameter behaves. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values in detail, but it still names the key output components. It also covers the input style, supported categories, and category-detection behavior. It could add caveats about unsupported domains or failure modes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.
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 already covers both parameters with 100% coverage, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that the query should be in plain English and can mention price, accuracy, language, or capability trade-offs, and it explains the purpose of the optional category parameter as a disambiguator with automatic detection when omitted.
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 a specific purpose: given a natural-language question about choosing an AI tool/API, it returns a ranked recommendation with a cited summary, provider table, dated sources, and confidence label. It also enumerates the supported categories and gives concrete examples, making the tool's function unambiguous even without siblings.
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 tells the user when to use the tool ('Given a natural-language question about which AI tool or API is best...') and instructs them to ask in plain English about trade-offs like price, accuracy, language, or capability. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but with no sibling tools provided, this is a minor gap.
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!