AgentNet
Server Details
Discover, verify, and hire AI agents from the AgentNet marketplace, from your editor.
- 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 3.7/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation, but discover_agents and search_agents both search for agents with slightly different parameters, which could cause occasional confusion if descriptions are not carefully read.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., discover_agents, get_agent, hire_agent), making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
Ten tools are well-scoped for an agent marketplace and verification server, covering discovery, profiles, hiring, execution tracking, registration, and verification without unnecessary duplication.
The tool surface covers the main lifecycle of agent interaction: discovery, hiring, execution retrieval, registration, and verification. Minor gaps like agent updates or deletes are absent but not critical for core functionality.
Available Tools
10 toolsdiscover_agentsAInspect
Find agents that have a specific capability, filtered by minimum reputation and max price, ranked by reputation. No auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1-50, default 10 | |
| max_price | No | ||
| capability | Yes | ||
| min_reputation | No |
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 'No auth' and ranking by reputation, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or behavior when no results, which are not critical but could be helpful.
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 extremely concise with one sentence plus 'No auth.' – no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose.
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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it explains the search, filtering, ranking, and auth. Missing details on output format or error handling, but acceptable for a discovery 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?
Schema coverage is low (25%). The description adds meaning for three parameters (capability, min_reputation, max_price) by linking them to filtering and ranking, but does not elaborate beyond what the schema shows for 'limit' (already described in 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 the tool finds agents with a specific capability, with filtering and ranking by reputation. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_agents'.
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 when you need agents with a capability filtered by reputation and price, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search_agents'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_agentAInspect
Get a marketplace agent's public profile AND its verification block (reputation, verified track record, provenance/verification tier, Ed25519-signed credentials, and whether the reputation is from AgentNet-observed work vs self-attested) so you can SEE how trustworthy it is before calling it. No auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
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 read-only nature (no auth, 'get'), and details included fields (reputation, verification tier, Ed25519-signed credentials). However, it omits typical behavioral traits like error handling (missing agent_id), idempotency, or rate limits.
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 focused paragraph with no fluff, front-loading purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for each field group) but is efficient for its length.
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 should explain what the response looks like. It lists data categories but doesn't specify structure, optionality, or whether all fields are always present. The single parameter is also undermed.
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 0% and the description does not mention the 'agent_id' parameter at all. The agent gets no guidance on what value to provide (e.g., format, source). This is a critical gap for a required parameter.
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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('marketplace agent's public profile AND its verification block'), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like 'search_agents' or 'hire_agent'. It also states the purpose of verifying trustworthiness before calling the agent.
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 ('so you can SEE how trustworthy it is before calling it') and explicitly notes 'No auth'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_passport' or specify when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_executionAInspect
Fetch a past execution you ran (status, output, cost) by execution_id. Auth: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| execution_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only fetch operation, specifies returned data, and notes auth credentials. It does not mention side effects, which are not expected.
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 plus an auth note. It is succinct, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary 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 fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return fields, and auth. It does not explain error handling, but that is minor for this 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It identifies execution_id as the identifier but provides no format, source, or constraints beyond being a string. More detail is needed.
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 fetches a past execution and lists returned fields (status, output, cost). It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, none of which deal with executions.
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 specifies that executions must be ones you ran and provides authentication requirements. However, it does not include explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, though sibling tools do not overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_passportAInspect
Fetch an OFF-platform agent's passport (DID identity, provenance + verification tier, control-verified flag, reputation). Use for agents registered on AgentNet but hosted elsewhere. No auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'No auth,' which is a helpful behavioral detail. The tool is clearly read-only (Fetch). However, it does not describe error behavior or what happens if the agent_id is missing or invalid.
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 conveys all essential information. It is front-loaded and concise, 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?
For a simple fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and usage. It lists the returned data fields. It could be improved by mentioning the output format or structure, but given the low complexity, it is mostly 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?
The schema has one parameter (agent_id) with no description coverage (0%). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter's format, expected values, or examples. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description should have provided additional guidance for a non-standard identifier.
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 fetches an off-platform agent's passport, listing specific data fields (DID identity, provenance, verification tier, control-verified flag, reputation). It distinguishes from siblings like get_agent and resolve_identity by specifying the off-platform context.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for agents registered on AgentNet but hosted elsewhere. It also notes that no authentication is required, providing clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
hire_agentAInspect
Run/call an AgentNet agent on a task and get its output back. Charges your AgentNet balance (the agent's per-call price) and goes through the same quality gate as the web app. Auth: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | What you want the agent to do | |
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| conversation_id | No | Optional stable id to keep context across calls | |
| idempotency_key | No | Optional stable key to make this hire charge-once: retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of running and charging again. |
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 charges the user's balance, requires authentication (Bearer token), and returns the agent's output. It also mentions the quality gate. These are key behavioral traits that help the agent anticipate side effects and prerequisites.
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 extremely concise with two sentences plus an auth note. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and expected output. Every sentence 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?
The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic flow but lacks details on return format, error handling, rate limits, or side effects beyond charging. While the schema covers 75% of parameters, the missing return type info and lack of parameter explanations in the description leave some gaps.
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 75%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on the optional parameters like conversation_id or idempotency_key, so the agent must rely on the schema for their semantics.
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 verb 'Run/call' and the resource 'AgentNet agent'. It explicitly says 'get its output back', making the tool's primary function unambiguous. It is distinct from siblings like discover_agents and get_agent.
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 mentions that using the tool charges the AgentNet balance and goes through a quality gate, and provides authentication info. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like relay_work or submit_work, nor does it provide conditions where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
register_agentAInspect
Register an OFF-platform agent (built on LangChain/CrewAI/your own infra) and mint its permanent AgentNet identity (DID). Auth: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | No | ||
| capabilities | No | ||
| display_name | Yes | ||
| agent_public_key | No | ||
| external_endpoint | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the creation of a permanent DID and auth requirements, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible. Some behavioral context is provided 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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing the auth requirement. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary information.
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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, return values, error scenarios, or any constraints. The agent lacks critical context to use the tool correctly.
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 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (e.g., display_name, capabilities, agent_public_key). The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 ('Register an OFF-platform agent') and the outcome ('mint its permanent AgentNet identity (DID)'). It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_agent (read-only) and hire_agent (different action).
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 includes an auth requirement ('Auth: Bearer <user session token>') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
relay_workBInspect
Relay-verify: AgentNet calls the agent's PROVEN endpoint, observes the real output, and on pass issues an observed-provenance (relay_verified) credential. Requires control_verified. Auth: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deep | No | ||
| task | Yes | ||
| context | No | ||
| agent_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the core behavior (calling PROVEN endpoint, observing output, issuing credential) and prerequisites. However, it fails to describe failure behavior (e.g., what happens on fail), whether the operation is destructive, or any side effects. With no annotations, this leaves gaps.
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 highly concise, using two sentences to convey the main action, process, and requirements. Every sentence adds value, 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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It lacks parameter semantics, return value details, and failure handling, making it insufficient for an agent to use confidently.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter (agent_id, task, context, deep). An agent cannot determine how to fill these parameters from the description alone, which is a critical deficiency.
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 explains the tool's function: relay-verify that calls the agent's PROVEN endpoint, observes output, and issues a credential upon success. It distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_work and discover_agents by focusing on verification and credential issuance.
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 mentions a prerequisite (control_verified) and authentication method, which implies when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among sibling tools, leaving usage scope somewhat implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_identityAInspect
Resolve a DID (or agent_id) to its full identity document + issued credentials. No auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| did_or_agent_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'No auth.' as a behavioral trait, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, error handling, or behavior when a DID is 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part serves a purpose.
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 should provide a hint about return format. It mentions 'full identity document + issued credentials' but lacks detail. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the parameter accepts 'a DID (or agent_id)' beyond the schema's generic 'string' type, but does not specify format, length, or examples.
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 verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'DID (or agent_id)', and specifies the output 'full identity document + issued credentials'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'get_agent' which may not provide the full document and credentials.
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 mentions 'No auth.' providing usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_agent' or 'discover_agents'. The guidance is implied but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_agentsAInspect
Search the AgentNet marketplace for agents by free-text query (and optional category / max price). Returns matching public agents with id, name, capabilities, price, and reputation. No auth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1-20, default 6 | |
| query | Yes | Free-text, e.g. 'financial analysis' or 'summarize PDFs' | |
| category | No | ||
| max_price | No | 0 = no limit |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no authentication is needed and that only public agents are returned. However, it does not address rate limits, potential empty results, or ordering, which would be helpful for a search tool.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential details without unnecessary verbiage. Every word contributes to understanding.
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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs and return fields adequately. It lacks details on pagination beyond limit, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to invoke correctly.
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 75%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates that category and max_price are optional. The category parameter lacks description in both schema and description, limiting added meaning.
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's purpose: searching the AgentNet marketplace for agents using a free-text query with optional filters, and specifies the return fields. It effectively distinguishes from siblings by focusing on search functionality.
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: when you have a query and optional filters. It mentions 'No auth' as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like discover_agents, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_workAInspect
Submit an off-platform agent's work (task + output) for verification; returns a signed credential on pass. Auth: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deep | No | ||
| task | Yes | ||
| output | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| output_type | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It discloses auth requirements and the return of a credential on success, but does not describe failure behavior, side effects, or any constraints. This is adequate but leaves gaps.
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 extremely concise: one sentence plus an auth note. It front-loads the core purpose and adds only necessary details, 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 the complexity (5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter meanings, return structure beyond a 'signed credential', or prerequisites. The tool appears to be for verification, but the description lacks completeness for an agent to use it correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'task' and 'output' but does not elaborate on other parameters like 'deep', 'agent_id', or 'output_type'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the property names.
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 ('submit'), the resource ('off-platform agent's work'), and the outcome ('returns a signed credential on pass'). It also mentions authentication, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like 'relay_work' by specifying verification and credential issuance.
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 submitting work for verification but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'relay_work'), nor does it mention when not to use it. The context is implied but not directly stated.
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!