failmodes
Server Details
MCP server for the Fail Modes taxonomy — a knowledge base of AI system failure modes
- 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 4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: retrieving a single record by ID, listing categories, listing modes (optionally filtered), and searching by symptom text. No overlap or ambiguity.
All names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_failure_mode, list_categories, list_modes, search_failure_modes. The pattern is uniform and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only taxonomy explorer: one for retrieval, two for listing (categories and modes), and one for search. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers all essential operations for exploring failure modes: listing categories, listing modes, searching, and getting details. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_failure_modeAInspect
Retrieve the full structured record for a single failure mode by its ID slug (e.g. 'citation-hallucination', 'sycophancy').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The failure mode ID slug, e.g. 'citation-hallucination' |
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 describes a read operation ('Retrieve') but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., when ID not found).
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 verb, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.
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?
Adequate for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter. Missing output schema or error behavior details, but sufficient given low 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'id'. Description adds example values but essentially repeats schema info, so baseline of 3.
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 retrieves the full structured record for a single failure mode by ID slug, with examples. Differentiates from siblings like list_categories, list_modes, and search_failure_modes.
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?
Implies use when you have a specific failure mode ID and need its full record. Context of sibling tools suggests alternatives for listing or searching, but no explicit when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_categoriesAInspect
List all taxonomy categories with their IDs, names, descriptions, and mode counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description correctly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It could mention that it returns all categories with no filtering or pagination, but the simple zero-parameter interface makes behavior clear.
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 with no unnecessary words. 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?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned. It could optionally describe the output structure (e.g., array of objects), but the current text is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 applies.
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 lists all taxonomy categories and specifies the returned fields (IDs, names, descriptions, mode counts). It distinguishes from siblings like list_modes (which lists modes) and get_failure_mode (which retrieves a single failure mode).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_modes or search_failure_modes. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_modesBInspect
List failure modes, optionally filtered to a single category by category ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional category ID to filter by, e.g. 'factuality'. Omit to list all modes. |
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 accurately describes the behavior (listing with optional filter) but does not disclose additional traits like pagination, ordering, or rate limits. The description is minimal but not misleading.
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 communicates the core functionality with no extraneous words. Every element earned 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 the simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate. However, it does not address how results compare to 'search_failure_modes' (e.g., exact category match vs. text search), leaving some ambiguity for complex queries.
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, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example value ('factuality') for the category parameter, which provides extra context beyond the schema definition.
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 ('List failure modes') and the resource, with optional filtering by category ID. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_failure_mode' by implying listing vs. single retrieval, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'search_failure_modes' or 'list_categories'.
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 siblings like 'search_failure_modes' or 'get_failure_mode'. The description only states what the tool does, not the context for choosing it over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_failure_modesAInspect
Search the Fail Modes taxonomy by symptom text or keyword phrase. Returns ranked matches with id, name, category, and matched context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symptom | Yes | Symptom phrase or keyword to search for, e.g. 'made up a citation' or 'refused to help after pushback' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description mentions 'ranked matches' but does not disclose read-only nature, auth needs, or result limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 concise sentences with no fluff; all information is front-loaded and relevant.
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 single parameter, full schema coverage, and sibling tools, the description is nearly complete. Lacks output schema detail but lists return fields.
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 a description for the symptom parameter; description adds valuable examples beyond schema, enhancing understanding.
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?
Uses specific verb 'Search' and resource 'Fail Modes taxonomy', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_failure_mode and list_modes.
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?
Clearly states to search by symptom text or keyword phrase. Sibling tool names imply when to use alternatives, but no explicit when-not 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!