singapore-proxy-mcp
Server Details
Browse the web and run Google search through real Singapore mobile carrier IPs.
- 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 3.8/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: fetching URLs, showing proxy status, rotating IP, and searching Google. No ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (fetch_url, my_proxy_status, rotate_ip, search_google), making them predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—covering core proxy operations without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The toolset covers essential proxy workflows (fetch, search, status, IP rotation). Minor gaps like missing cookie handling or advanced options are acceptable given the focused scope.
Available Tools
4 toolsfetch_urlAInspect
Fetch a URL through a Singapore mobile IP and return its content.
Args:
url: The full http(s) URL to fetch.
format: One of "markdown" (default, clean main content), "text", or "html".| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| format | No | markdown |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 full burden. It only notes that the fetch happens through a Singapore mobile IP but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, error handling, or size limits.
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 and well-structured: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a bullet-style Args section. Every sentence is necessary and no words are wasted.
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 has an output schema (not shown), return values need not be described. However, the description omits potential limitations like timeout, max content size, or error responses that an agent might need to know for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds clear meaning: 'url' is explained as 'The full http(s) URL to fetch' and 'format' is fully detailed with the three options and the default 'markdown'. This compensates for the missing 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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a URL', with the specific context 'through a Singapore mobile IP'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like my_proxy_status, rotate_ip, and search_google.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the Singapore IP route but lacks explicit context, such as 'Use this for fetching content from a Singapore IP; for proxy status use my_proxy_status.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
my_proxy_statusAInspect
Show the current Singapore exit IP, carrier, and remaining quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses it's a read-only status check with no side effects. Lacks mention of prerequisites or edge cases, but sufficient for a simple 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action. 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?
Fully describes the output (IP, carrier, quota) for a tool with zero parameters and no annotations. Output schema covers remaining details.
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, schema coverage 100%. Description adds no parameter info needed. Baseline 4.
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?
Clearly states it shows current Singapore exit IP, carrier, and remaining quota. Distinguishes from siblings like fetch_url, rotate_ip.
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?
Implied usage from name and description, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rotate_ipAInspect
Request a fresh Singapore mobile IP for the current proxy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description only says 'request a fresh IP' without disclosing side effects (e.g., old IP becomes unusable), rate limits, or authentication needs. Assumes agent knows implications.
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?
Single sentence with essential info, no unnecessary words. Appropriate length for a simple no-parameter tool.
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 simplicity and presence of output schema, description lacks behavioral details (e.g., blocking, costs, limits). Sufficient for basic use but incomplete for optimal agent decision-making.
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 schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by specifying location (Singapore) and type (mobile) beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 action (request), the resource (fresh Singapore mobile IP), and scope (for current proxy). Distinguishes from siblings like fetch_url and my_proxy_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no context on frequency or prerequisites. Single sentence does not help agent decide appropriateness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_googleAInspect
Run a Singapore-localized Google search (gl=sg) and return organic results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'organic results' but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or behavior under failure. Some useful info but significant gaps.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Efficiently conveys the core action and localization.
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 simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral details like proxy usage or limits, which would be helpful given sibling tools suggest proxy concerns.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (query, num) beyond what the schema provides. The description fails to add meaning for parameters, which is especially needed given no 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 action ('Run a Google search'), the resource ('Google'), and the specific localization ('Singapore-localized, gl=sg'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_url and rotate_ip.
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 usage for Singapore-localized Google searches but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. No explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings.
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!