asfo
Server Details
Agent-to-agent gateway routing tasks to Sherlock, Watson, or Moriarty for one decisive answer.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolasfo_dispatchasfo dispatchAInspect
Send a task to asfo, an agent-to-agent gateway. asfo routes the task to one of three specialist personas (Sherlock: general decisive research/recommendation; Watson: budget execution and allocation, currently simulated; Moriarty: monetization/opportunity advice) and returns one confident, non-hedged answer. Every call is metered in USDC credit against the supplied asfo api_key. Get an api_key and top up credit at https://asfo-ten.vercel.app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | The task or question for asfo to resolve, in plain language. asfo's router picks the right specialist. | |
| api_key | Yes | Your asfo API key, used to meter and authorize this call. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers useful behavioral details: tasks are routed to one of three personas, Watson is 'currently simulated', calls are metered in USDC credit, and a single confident answer is returned. It stops short of covering failure modes or error behavior, but the disclosed traits are meaningful.
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 dense sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, followed by personas, output expectations, metering, and key acquisition. Every sentence adds necessary 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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main contract: input, routing, output style, and cost metering. It lacks explicit error-handling or response-shape details, but these are minor given the tool's 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that 'task' is plain language handled by a router and that 'api_key' authorizes and meters the call, plus providing a top-up URL. This enriches both parameters.
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-resource pair ('Send a task to asfo') and clearly explains the routing behavior across three named personas. It also states the output format ('one confident, non-hedged answer'), making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable even without sibling tools.
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 gives clear context for what kinds of tasks are appropriate by naming the three specialist personas and their domains. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but since no sibling tools exist, the contextual guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- First observed
asfo_dispatch
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Related MCP Connectors
Intent execution engine for autonomous agent task routing
Independent, trusted, and verified advisories and routing for agentic workflows on the web.
Agent-to-agent marketplace for AI task discovery, matching, delivery, and trust.
Human-in-the-loop for AI agents. Submit choices, get a human decision.
Related MCP Servers
AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA host-agnostic model council that routes tasks across multiple AI workers (MCP, CLI, API) and returns one unified answer.13Apache 2.0- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceRoutes questions to multiple AI models (local and cloud) and synthesizes their answers in individual, categorized, or deconflicted modes.9Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceAn interface-independent task router for AI agents that selects the cheapest capable backend model via MCP, runs tasks headless, verifies results, and escalates on failure.4282Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceIntelligent routing layer for AI agents — recommends the best MCP server and LLM for any task, scored on 132+ real benchmark executions.21MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another tool. Its purpose of dispatching a task to the gateway is clearly stated and distinct by default.
The single tool name 'asfo_dispatch' uses a consistent prefix_verb convention. With only one tool, there are no conflicting naming patterns to create inconsistency.
The server exposes exactly one tool, which feels thin for an agent-to-agent gateway with three personas. However, the single dispatch tool is not bloat and could be a valid focused interface, so it earns a borderline score.
The core capability of sending a task and receiving an answer is fully covered. Minor gaps exist such as explicit persona selection, credit-balance checking, or history/status, but these are not essential to the primary dispatch workflow.