llmsmap.me International Directory
Server Details
Read-only search and discovery for the international llms.txt directory maintained by llmsmap.me.
- 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 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: one lists all approved sites, and the other searches by name or URL. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (list_catalog, search_catalog), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a directory service. While it could be sufficient for a simple read-only catalog, most directory applications benefit from additional tools like add or update operations.
The tool set covers basic listing and searching, which are core functions for a directory. However, it lacks CRUD operations (e.g., add, update, delete), which are common expectations for such a server.
Available Tools
2 toolslist_catalogAInspect
Get approved sites in the llmsmap.me catalog with llms.txt URLs, token counts, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of sites to return, capped at 50. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'approved sites' and fields but omits important details like pagination behavior (beyond a 50 cap), rate limits, authentication requirements, or idempotency. The limit cap is mentioned in the parameter schema, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.
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 that is efficient and front-loaded, containing no extraneous information. Every part adds value.
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?
The description mentions return fields but lacks details on pagination (e.g., offset, total count), ordering, or error handling. Given the simple nature of the tool, it is decent but not fully comprehensive.
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 the single optional 'limit' parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, though it lists output fields not found in 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 the tool retrieves approved sites with specific fields (llms.txt URLs, token counts, metadata), distinguishing it from the sibling 'search_catalog' which likely involves searching.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_catalog'. The description implies listing all approved sites, but does not provide criteria for choosing between list and search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_catalogBInspect
Search the llmsmap.me catalog by product name or URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of sites to return, capped at 50. | |
| query | Yes | Search term (product name or part of URL). |
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 only states the basic operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as case-sensitivity, result ordering, pagination behavior, or whether it returns partial matches.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding significant 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?
Given the absence of an output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks completeness for a search operation. It does not specify return format, result ordering, or how the search handles partial matches, which are important for effective 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('query' and 'limit') are described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'catalog' with specific search criteria 'by product name or URL'. It effectively differentiates from the sibling tool 'list_catalog' by implying that this tool is for targeted searches.
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 that the tool is used for searching by product name or URL, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'list_catalog', nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.
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!