tokenguard-mcp
Server Details
Real-world data for agents: air quality, geocoding, quakes, holidays, web search
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- eltociear/tokenguard-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 1
- Server Listing
- tokenguard-mcp
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 3.5/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose—air quality, country indicators, earthquakes, elevation, geocoding, holidays, URL reading, and web search—so there is no ambiguity or overlap.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores (snake_case), following a consistent pattern (e.g., air_quality, country_indicator, web_search). No mixing of conventions.
8 tools is a reasonable size for a data utility server. Not too many to overwhelm, and each tool serves a distinct function.
The tools are a random collection of data APIs (air quality, earthquakes, holidays, etc.) with no coherent domain. The server name 'tokenguard' suggests security or token handling, but no such functionality exists. Many common data types (weather, maps, finance) are missing.
Available Tools
8 toolsair_qualityAInspect
Current air quality for a place: PM2.5, PM10, ozone, NO2, SO2, CO and dust, plus the US and European AQI and the US AQI band ('Good', 'Unhealthy'). Takes a place name — no coordinates needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | Place name, e.g. 'Tokyo' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a place name (no coordinates), and lists specific outputs (pollutants, AQI, band). Missing details like data freshness or rate limits, but sufficient for basic transparency.
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 information. Every word is purposeful, no 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?
For a simple one-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers essential inputs and outputs. Could mention data source or update frequency, but overall adequate.
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 100% for the single parameter 'location'. The description adds 'no coordinates needed', which adds marginal value beyond the schema's 'Place name, e.g. Tokyo'.
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 provides current air quality data for a place, listing specific pollutants and AQI metrics. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'earthquakes' or 'geocode' by focusing on air quality.
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 getting air quality for a place, and the list of sibling tools makes it clear this is distinct. However, no explicit 'when-to-use' or exclusion guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
country_indicatorBInspect
World Bank time series for a country: gdp, gdp_per_capita, population, inflation, unemployment, life_expectancy, co2_per_capita or internet_users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | No | 1-60 most recent years (default 5) | |
| country | Yes | ISO 2- or 3-letter country code | |
| indicator | No | Alias above, or a World Bank code |
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 mentions it returns time series data but fails to state whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or the response format. This is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
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 lists key information. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Could be slightly improved by adding a verb, but overall efficient.
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 should provide more context about the returned data (e.g., format, structure, time series). It only says 'time series' without additional details, leaving agents insufficiently informed.
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 descriptions cover all three parameters (years, country, indicator) but are generic. The description adds value by listing concrete indicator aliases (gdp, gdp_per_capita, etc.), which helps agents select valid indicator values beyond the schema's mention of 'a World Bank code'.
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 provides World Bank time series data for a country and lists the available indicators, distinguishing it from siblings that cover different domains (e.g., air quality, earthquakes). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', slightly reducing clarity.
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 versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, and no comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
earthquakesAInspect
Recent earthquakes from the USGS feed — worldwide, or within a radius of a named place. Returns magnitude, depth, tsunami flag and felt reports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | 1-30 days back (default 1) | |
| limit | No | 1-100 events (default 20) | |
| location | No | Centre on a place name | |
| radius_km | No | Radius around location (default 500) | |
| min_magnitude | No | Lower bound (default 4.5) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool returns data, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects.
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 immediately conveys the core purpose and scope, with no superfluous 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 query tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return values. Minor omissions like data source update frequency or default sorting do not significantly hinder usability.
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 all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds context about worldwide vs. location-based queries, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond 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 it fetches recent earthquakes from the USGS feed, with options for worldwide or location-specific searches. It lists returned fields, making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. No sibling tools overlap.
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 use for obtaining earthquake data but does not explicitly discuss when to use versus alternatives. Since sibling tools are unrelated, the context is clear, but explicit guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
elevationCInspect
Ground elevation in metres for a place name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | Yes | Place name |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose error handling (e.g., ambiguous place names, missing data), whether it makes external calls, or if it is read-only. Only basic behavior is stated.
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 with no wasted words. It is concise, though slightly more detail could be added without harming brevity.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should explain the response format (e.g., numeric value, JSON structure). It only states 'ground elevation in metres', which is insufficient for an agent to parse the result reliably.
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 no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Place name' for the location parameter. It could benefit from examples or format requirements.
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 provides ground elevation in metres for a place name. It distinguishes from siblings like geocode (which returns coordinates) and air_quality. However, it lacks a verb (e.g., 'Get') that would make the action explicit.
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. For example, it does not clarify whether geocode also returns elevation or when to prefer one over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
geocodeAInspect
Resolve a place name to coordinates, country, admin region, timezone, elevation and population.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Place name to resolve | |
| count | No | 1-20 candidates (default 5) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It lists outputs but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether results are cached. Adequate but lacks depth.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently conveys the tool's function and outputs with 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, the description adequately lists expected return values. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is sufficient, though it could mention output format (e.g., lat/lng) or failure modes.
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%; both parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'name' and 'count', 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 the action ('Resolve a place name') and lists specific outputs (coordinates, country, admin region, timezone, elevation, population), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like 'elevation' or 'country_indicator'.
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 (e.g., 'elevation' for elevation only, 'country_indicator' for country data), and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
public_holidaysBInspect
Public holidays for a country and year, with local names and a past/upcoming flag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Calendar year (defaults to current) | |
| country | Yes | ISO 2-letter country code, e.g. JP |
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 for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or behavior for missing optional parameters (e.g., year defaults to current). The description is minimal.
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, short and front-loaded, but lacks structure. It is concise but could be improved with clearer separation of input/output details.
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 should provide more detail on return structure, example, or default behavior. It only mentions local names and a flag, omitting that the result is a list and what the flag values mean.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters themselves; it only describes output features. 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 states the tool returns public holidays for a given country and year, with additional details (local names and past/upcoming flag). This uniquely identifies its purpose among siblings like air_quality or web_search.
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 implicitly indicates use when holiday data is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives or any prerequisites. No exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_urlAInspect
Fetch a URL and return its main content as clean Markdown, boilerplate stripped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Page to fetch |
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 mentions 'main content' and 'boilerplate stripped' but does not disclose failure handling, rate limits, or what constitutes 'main content'. Only success case is implied.
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, no superfluous words. Front-loaded with key action 'Fetch a URL'. Highly efficient.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. However, it could be improved by mentioning limitations (e.g., public URLs only) or error handling.
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 parameter 'url' described as 'Page to fetch'. Description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 verb 'Fetch', resource 'URL', and output 'main content as clean Markdown' with 'boilerplate stripped'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'web_search' which likely return snippets.
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?
Usage context is implied (fetching full page content), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Sibling tools are named but not compared.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
web_searchAInspect
Search the live web and return ranked title/url/snippet results, through an automatic multi-engine failover chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| max_results | No | 1-25 (default 10) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'automatic multi-engine failover chain' which hints at reliability but lacks details like error handling, rate limits, or return format variations. For a search tool, more transparency about failure modes or result quality would be beneficial.
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, 18 words, front-loaded with key information. No redundancy or fluff. Every part (verb, resource, output, failover) 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 moderate complexity (search tool with failover), the description adequately covers what it searches, the output format (title/url/snippet), and ranking. Could elaborate on failover behavior or result count implications, but overall 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 description coverage is 100%, so schema already defines 'query' and 'max_results' with descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, thus 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?
Description clearly states verb 'search', resource 'live web', and output 'ranked title/url/snippet results'. The mention of 'automatic multi-engine failover chain' adds specific context. Sibling tools are all non-web-search (geocode, air_quality, etc.), so this tool is distinctly identified.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for live web search, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling set, the purpose alone provides adequate guidance, but lack of explicit direction keeps this at a 3.
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!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.