Skip to main content
Glama

Agentic Commerce Tools

by io.github.f-tiger

Public MCP Server Index (weekly)

get_public_mcp_index

Return the Public MCP Server Index: a weekly-refreshed health, conformance and latency ranking of popular public (no-auth) remote MCP servers, scored 0-100 by the same live JSON-RPC handshake used by check_mcp_server. Includes per-server score, grade, latency, tool count, description quality and failing checks, plus aggregate stats (how many popular servers are auth-gated, average score and latency). Use it to pick a reliable public MCP server for a task, cite ecosystem statistics, or benchmark a server against the field. Free, no parameters. Curated by MCP Pulse (mcppulse.agiscorecard.com); on-demand scans of arbitrary servers at scale are available pay-per-call via x402 at https://x402.agiscorecard.com.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return data (scores, grades, latency, aggregate stats) and mentions the underlying handshake. Implies read-only retrieval, though it does not explicitly state side effects or rate limits. Adequate but could be more explicit about non-destructive nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with clear sentences, but repeats 'Public MCP Server Index' and 'MCP' multiple times, adding slight redundancy. Still concise enough for the detail provided; could be tightened without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema is provided, but the description thoroughly explains the content of the index (per-server metrics, aggregate stats) and its use cases. It also notes the free nature and additional paid scanning service, covering practical context. Without parameters, this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4; description notes 'no parameters,' which is sufficient. No additional parameter semantics needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it returns a Public MCP Server Index ranking servers by health, conformance, and latency. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools, mentioning the same handshake as check_mcp_server for context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly lists use cases: picking a reliable server, citing ecosystem statistics, and benchmarking. Also notes it is free and parameterless, which guides when to invoke it. Differentiates from server-specific checks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Agentic Commerce Tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

All tools have distinct purposes: scanning, checking MCP servers, well-known discovery, term lookup, generation, and index retrieval. However, agent_readiness_scan and check_wellknown_discovery overlap in checking AI-readiness signals, though one focuses on page-level and the other on discovery files, which may cause some confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (agent_readiness_scan, check_mcp_server, check_wellknown_discovery, generate_llms_txt, get_public_mcp_index, get_visibility_index), but define_term is a different style (verb + object without underscore). Minor inconsistency in the use of underscores vs. no delimiter for 'wellknown'.

Tool Count4/5

Seven tools is a reasonable count for a server covering agent-readiness auditing and related utilities. Each tool has a clear role, though some could be seen as variations of the same theme, but the count is within the ideal range.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main workflows: scanning individual sites for readiness, checking MCP servers, and accessing aggregate indexes, plus generation and reference. A gap might be an update or deeper analysis tool (e.g., a tool to get recommendations for multiple sites at once), but overall it feels complete for its stated purpose.

Resources