ask-ogino
Server Details
Query Shunki Ogino's public profile: his thesis, the tools he builds, and his writing.
- Status
- Healthy
- 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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_post retrieves a specific blog post, get_profile provides self-introduction, how_to_connect gives contact info, list_posts lists posts, list_works lists creations, and search cross-references content. No overlap.
All tools use lowercase snake_case. Most follow a verb_noun pattern (get_post, list_posts, etc.), though how_to_connect is a phrase and search is a simple verb. Minor deviation but overall consistent.
6 tools is well-scoped for a personal knowledge server. Each tool serves a necessary function: profile, contact, works, posts (list & single), and search. No redundancy or bloat.
Covers the domain well: learning about the person, contacting, viewing works and posts, and searching. Could potentially add a tool for detailed work info or experience, but the existing set handles core needs.
Available Tools
6 toolsget_postAInspect
ブログ記事1本の全文（markdown）を slug で取得する。slug は list_posts / search の結果に含まれる。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 記事のslug |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states returns 'full text (markdown)'. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication, or response structure, which are useful but not critical for a simple read.
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 key action, no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.
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 retrieval tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description covers what it does, how to identify the post, and source of the identifier. 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% with one parameter described. The description adds context: slug comes from list_posts/search, which is beyond the schema's basic description.
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 verb 'get' and resource 'full text of one blog post in markdown', and distinguishes from siblings list_posts and search which provide slugs, not full content.
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 explicitly says to use when retrieving full text by slug, and indicates slugs come from list_posts/search. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or 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.
get_profileAInspect
荻野舜樹（Shunki Ogino）が何者で、何を考えているか（自己紹介・思想）を返す。まずこれを呼ぶとよい。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It states the return value (introduction/philosophy) but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 short, front-loaded sentences. First sentence defines purpose; second gives usage advice. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple return, the description is complete. It explains the content and optimal calling order, fulfilling all necessary context.
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?
No parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, but schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). No additional meaning needed.
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 returns the self-introduction and philosophy of Shunki Ogino, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('profile'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_post and list_posts by focusing on the person's identity.
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 recommends calling this tool first ('まずこれを呼ぶとよい'), providing clear context for when to use it as an introductory step. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the recommendation is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
how_to_connectAInspect
荻野への連絡先・つながり方（Discord/GitHub/各SNS）と、どんな人に来てほしいかを返す。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool returns but does not mention behavioral traits like idempotency or error conditions. For a simple query tool, it is adequate but could be more explicit about being a read-only operation.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action. It contains no redundant information and earns its place.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat complete by stating the nature of the return (contact info and welcome criteria). However, it does not hint at the structure or format of the response, which could be valuable for an agent.
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 no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter information.
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 the tool returns contact information and connection methods for Ogino, specifying Discord/GitHub/SNS and indicating what kind of people are welcome. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which deal with posts, profile, and works.
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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs Ogino's contact info, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are distinct, so context is clear, but no exclusions or conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_postsBInspect
荻野のブログ記事の一覧（タイトル・日付・要約・URL）を新しい順に返す。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 件数上限（既定20） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses ordering (newest first) and returned fields. However, it omits other behavioral traits like authentication, read-only nature, or pagination beyond the limit parameter.
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 one sentence, very concise and to the point. It front-loads the key information. 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It mentions returned fields but lacks structure details. For a list tool with only one parameter, it covers the essentials but could be more thorough.
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% with a clear description for the limit parameter. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline 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?
The description clearly states it returns a list of blog posts with specified fields (title, date, summary, URL) in newest-first order. It distinguishes from siblings like get_post (single post) and list_works (works).
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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context. For example, it could state 'use get_post for a specific post'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_worksBInspect
荻野が作ったもの（作品・道具）の一覧を、説明・タグ・URL・リポジトリ付きで返す。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
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. It only states that it returns a list, but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is paginated or cached. The behavior is minimally described.
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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output content without any extraneous 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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It tells what the tool returns but lacks details like ordering, filtering, or data freshness. Given the existence of sibling tools, more context on when to use this could improve completeness.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the return details (descriptions, tags, URLs, repositories) beyond the empty schema, which is helpful for understanding the output.
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 that the tool returns a list of works/tools created by Ogino, with descriptions, tags, URLs, and repositories. The verb 'list' and resource 'works' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_posts' (likely blog posts) and 'search' (query-based). However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., 'all works') and differentiate further from 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'get_post', 'search', etc., exist, but the description does not indicate scenarios for choosing this tool, such as when a full list of works is needed versus a specific post or search result.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchAInspect
荻野の思想・作品・ブログ全文をキーワードで横断検索し、一致した項目を返す。「この人はXについてどう考えている？」に答える時に使う。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 検索語（日本語/英語） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It describes cross-searching full text and returning matches, but lacks details on result format, pagination, matching behavior, or safety. Adequate but not rich.
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 action, second sentence provides use case. 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?
For a simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and context well. It lacks explicit return format, but is mostly complete given the context.
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% with a description for the query parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 it searches across multiple content domains (thoughts, works, blogs) by keyword and returns matches. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_post or list_works which are single-source or listing operations.
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 the use case: when answering 'What does this person think about X?'. This provides clear context for when to invoke this tool over alternatives.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!