cyanheads-mcp-server
Server Details
Fleet discovery for the cyanheads MCP ecosystem — semantic search + install snippets.
- 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 4.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: cyanheads_search retrieves matches for queries, while cyanheads_describe provides detailed info for a named item. There is no ambiguity.
Both tools follow the same prefix 'cyanheads_' followed by a clear verb (_search, _describe). The naming pattern is consistent and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal but still covers its core function (find and describe). However, additional tools like listing all servers or tools could enhance the scope without overloading.
The pair covers the essential discovery workflow: search to find valid names, then describe to get details. A minor gap is the lack of a direct listing endpoint, but the search serves as a reasonable entry point.
Available Tools
2 toolscyanheads_describeDescribe Fleet Tool or ServerARead-onlyInspect
Return the description and install snippets for a named tool or server. For tools: the description and the server it belongs to. For servers: local (stdio, via npx) install snippets for every published server, plus remote (HTTP) connection snippets when a hosted endpoint exists — for every supported client, or one client via the client parameter. Call cyanheads_search first to find valid names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Whether name refers to a tool or server. Omit to auto-detect: names containing underscores are treated as tools; names containing hyphens are treated as servers. | |
| name | Yes | Tool name (snake_case, e.g. "earthquake_search") or server name (kebab-case, e.g. "earthquake-mcp-server"). Use cyanheads_search to discover valid names. | |
| client | No | Return install snippets for this client only (both local and remote transports when available). Omit to return snippets for all supported clients. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | The resolved entry — either a tool detail or a server detail depending on the resolved kind. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a read-only describe operation. It adds details on auto-detection, client filtering, and snippet generation without contradicting 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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states core purpose, subsequent sentences add necessary detail without redundancy. Every sentence 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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers auto-detection, client filtering, prerequisite search, and distinguishes between tool and server, making it fully complete given the tool's complexity.
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 the description adds significant meaning: explains auto-detection for kind, usage of cyanheads_search for valid names, and the effect of the client parameter (return snippets for one vs all clients).
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 description and install snippets for a named tool or server, distinguishing between the two and referencing auto-detection. It uniquely describes the tool's function among 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?
Explicitly instructs to call cyanheads_search first to find valid names, and explains the auto-detection logic for kind. Provides clear context on when to use and prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
cyanheads_searchSearch Fleet Tools and ServersARead-onlyInspect
Search fleet tools and servers by natural-language description. Returns ranked matches with brief summaries and the server each tool belongs to. Use scope "servers" to find which server handles a workflow; use the default scope "tools" to find specific tools. Call cyanheads_describe on a result name to get install snippets and the connection URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return (1-20). Default 5. | |
| query | Yes | Natural language search query. Describe what you want to accomplish, a workflow, or a capability area. | |
| scope | No | What to search. "tools" returns individual tool matches; "servers" returns server-level matches. | tools |
| category | No | Filter by catalog category. Omit to search all categories. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | Scope that was searched. |
| notice | No | Guidance when no results matched — e.g. how to broaden the query or try a different scope. Absent on successful result pages. |
| results | Yes | Ranked matches, best first. |
| servers | No | Roll-up of distinct servers across the full match set, before the limit slice. Present only for scope "tools". Ordered by topScore desc (name-tiebroken); capped at 10. Use serversTotal to see how many distinct servers matched in total. |
| totalCount | Yes | Total relevant matches before the limit was applied. |
| serversTotal | No | Total distinct servers in the full match set (before the cap of 10 is applied). Present only when servers is present. |
| effectiveQuery | Yes | The query that was searched. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that results are 'ranked matches' with 'brief summaries' and server info, which is useful context. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides a reasonable level of behavioral detail, though more about ranking criteria could be added.
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?
Three sentences cover purpose, usage guidelines, and follow-up. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action and resource.
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?
Output schema exists (reducing need for return value explanation). Description covers search behavior, scope usage, and post-search recommendation. Complete for a search tool with clear output and sibling tool linkage.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of 'scope' (server vs. tool search) and the follow-up action using results. This elevates it above the baseline.
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 clear verb 'Search' and specifies resources 'fleet tools and servers'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'cyanheads_describe' by focusing on search and ranking, not detailed descriptions. The purpose is immediately understandable.
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 tells when to use each scope ('servers' for workflows, 'tools' for specific tools) and what to do after results ('call cyanheads_describe'). This provides clear guidance on tool selection and follow-up actions, leaving no ambiguity.
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!