Deterministic motion compiler + validator: reports WCAG 2.2.2 pause-path candidates, fail-closed.
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 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: motion_catalog provides reference data, while motion_validate performs validation. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools share the motion_ prefix, making the naming predictable. One is a noun (catalog) and the other a verb (validate), a minor inconsistency, but the pattern is otherwise clear.
Only two tools is on the low end, but the server has a narrow scope: catalog lookup and validation. It covers the core workflow, though some might expect a compile tool as well.
The server covers its stated purpose well: retrieving the catalog and validating specs against accessibility rules. The compile step is intentionally external, so no major dead ends. Minor gap: no way to inspect individual primitives separately, but the catalog covers that.
motion_catalogMotionSpec catalog & authoring rulesAReturns the catalog of verified motion primitives (names, purpose, parameter schemas, defaults) plus the authoring rules for writing a MotionSpec. Call this FIRST, then write the spec yourself and validate it with motion_validate (motion_compile runs in the CLI or with a key on the hosted endpoint).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it returns both the catalog and authoring rules, and it is the mandated first step. It also notes the deployment mode for motion_compile, which is extra workflow 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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose and contents, the second gives workflow guidance. Every clause adds value, and the most critical information ('Call this FIRST') 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?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the exact contents of the catalog (names, purpose, parameter schemas, defaults, authoring rules) and situating the tool in the overall workflow with motion_validate and motion_compile. No important context 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 tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema is complete. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description correctly omits parameter details and focuses on output content, which 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?
The description explicitly states it 'Returns the catalog of verified motion primitives (names, purpose, parameter schemas, defaults) plus the authoring rules for writing a MotionSpec.' This is a specific verb+resource+content, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool motion_validate by positioning this as the catalog provider.
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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call this FIRST, then write the spec yourself and validate it with motion_validate (motion_compile runs in the CLI or with a key on the hosted endpoint).' This clearly states when to use the tool and how it fits in the workflow relative to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
motion_validateValidate a MotionSpec (trust boundary)AChecks a MotionSpec against the schema, the primitive allow-list, parameter bounds and injection rules. Fail-closed: returns ok=false with precise errors. Returns {ok, errors, warnings, deprecations, catalogVersion}. IMPORTANT: warnings[] carries the WCAG 2.2.2 / reduced-motion findings and can be non-empty while ok=true — a spec that compiles is not automatically accessible. Use to pre-check a spec before compiling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | Yes | The MotionSpec JSON object |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing fail-closed behavior ('returns ok=false with precise errors') and the critical warning semantics that warnings[] can be non-empty while ok=true, tying it to WCAG 2.2.2/reduced-motion. This is genuinely valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.
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 dense and efficient: the first sentence states the core action, the second explains fail-closed and returns, and the third highlights the critical accessibility nuance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler wording.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly enumerates the return shape ({ok, errors, warnings, deprecations, catalogVersion}) and explains the non-obvious semantics (warnings non-empty with ok=true). Combined with the single well-documented parameter and clear annotations, this gives an agent everything needed to invoke and interpret 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?
The input schema already has 100% coverage for the single 'spec' parameter with a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds high-level validation context (what is checked) but does not add specific parameter syntax or formatting details beyond the schema, so no score above the baseline is warranted.
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 uses a specific verb ('Checks') and clearly identifies the resource being validated (a MotionSpec), listing the exact validation dimensions: schema, primitive allow-list, parameter bounds, and injection rules. This also distinguishes it from the sibling motion_catalog by making clear this is a validation/trust-boundary tool, not a catalog lookup.
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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use to pre-check a spec before compiling.' This gives clear context and a practical usage trigger. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.