DeltaMesh Web Freshness
Server Details
Free public web freshness and response-metadata checks for AI agents.
- 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 2 of 2 tools scored.
The tools are distinct: one fetches metadata for a single URL, the other compares up to five. However, the names are similar and an agent might confuse their purposes without reading descriptions.
Both tools use snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern. 'compare_web_freshness' is descriptive; 'web_freshness' is less precise but still consistent in structure.
Two tools is minimal but appropriate for a focused server with a simple purpose. The count is not excessive, though one more tool (e.g., clearing cache) could round it out.
The server covers the basic operations of fetching and comparing web freshness. However, it lacks any update or delete functionality, and there is no tool for batch fetching without comparison.
Available Tools
2 toolscompare_web_freshnessCompare web freshnessARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Compare response metadata for up to five public HTTPS URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds only the constraint of 'public HTTPS URLs', but does not disclose additional behaviors like error handling or rate limits. Minimal extra value 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence of 9 words. No extraneous information, perfectly front-loaded with purpose and constraints.
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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description adequately covers inputs and purpose. The term 'response metadata' is slightly vague, but the overall completeness is sufficient for a straightforward tool.
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 no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds critical context: the URLs must be public and HTTPS, and the array limit is 5. This significantly clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's field names and constraints.
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 compares response metadata for up to five public HTTPS URLs, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'web_freshness' (singular), but could elaborate on what metadata is compared.
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 using this tool when comparing multiple URLs, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling tool is named but not contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
web_freshnessCheck web freshnessARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Fetch public HTTPS response metadata such as status, ETag and Last-Modified without downloading the full page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public HTTPS URL using a DNS hostname. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail about fetching metadata without full page download, which provides useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 and constraints. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema) and the presence of comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It lists example return fields to compensate for the missing output schema.
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 schema description for the 'url' parameter is comprehensive (e.g., 'Public HTTPS URL using a DNS hostname.'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter, so a baseline score 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 specifies the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'public HTTPS response metadata', listing specific metadata (status, ETag, Last-Modified). It also distinguishes from downloading the full page, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 lightweight usage via 'without downloading the full page', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'compare_web_freshness' or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks definitive guidance.
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!