Indic Normalize
Server Details
Indic transliteration plus Indian name, address, PIN, PAN, GSTIN normalization.
- 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 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
Each tool targets a distinct task: script detection, transliteration, name normalization, address parsing, PIN decoding, GSTIN validation, PAN validation. No two tools have overlapping purposes, making selection unambiguous.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (detect_script, normalize_address, normalize_name), but transliterate lacks an explicit noun, and state_from_pan uses a noun_from_noun structure. gstin_info is also noun_noun. This inconsistency in naming style reduces predictability.
7 tools is well-scoped for an Indian text normalization server. Each tool addresses a common need without redundancy, and the count feels neither sparse nor overwhelming.
Covers core areas: script handling, name/address normalization, and key ID validations (GSTIN, PAN, PIN). Minor gaps exist (e.g., Aadhaar validation), but the set is largely complete for its stated domain.
Available Tools
7 toolsdetect_scriptCInspect
Detect the dominant script of input text. Returns primary script + per-script character counts + a confidence score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes what the tool returns but does not mention side effects, limitations (e.g., script coverage), error handling, or performance characteristics. It does not contradict annotations.
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 front-loads the purpose and includes return details. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured for quick parsing (e.g., separating purpose and output).
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?
With no output schema, the description partially explains the return (primary script, counts, confidence) but lacks details like script encoding, count format, or confidence scale. No error scenarios or edge cases are covered.
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 only parameter 'text' has zero schema description coverage, and the tool description merely labels it as 'input text' without adding constraints or format expectations, offering minimal added 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 action (detect dominant script) and the resource (input text), and lists return components (primary script, character counts, confidence). However, it could be more specific about what 'dominant' means and the output format.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on when not to use it. The description only states functionality without usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
gstin_infoAInspect
Validate a GSTIN and return the state code (first 2 digits) + state name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gstin | 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 full burden. It discloses the tool validates and returns data but does not mention behavior on invalid input (e.g., error or null), side effects, or whether it accesses an external service. Essential behavioral details are missing.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the key operations without extra words. It is front-loaded and efficiently uses space.
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 description is brief and covers the main operation but lacks input format details, error handling, and output structure. Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), it is partially complete but could benefit from specifying validation criteria and return format.
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 adds meaning by specifying that the first 2 digits of the GSTIN represent the state code. However, it does not describe the expected GSTIN format (e.g., 15 characters) or validation rules beyond state code extraction.
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 validates a GSTIN and returns the state code and state name, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like state_from_pan by specifying the input type (GSTIN vs PAN).
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 when to use (when you have a GSTIN) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like state_from_pan for PAN numbers. No exclusions or context for choosing this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
normalize_addressAInspect
Parse an Indian postal address into structured fields: line, locality, city, state (from PIN), pincode. Validates PIN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It mentions PIN validation but does not describe error behavior (e.g., invalid address, non-Indian address) or the output format. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.
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 that is concise and front-loaded with the core function. 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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains input and output fields but lacks details on output structure, error handling, and usage context.
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 provides only the parameter name 'address' with no description. The description adds meaning by specifying it expects an Indian postal address and will parse it into fields, compensating for the 0% schema description 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?
Clearly states the tool parses an Indian postal address into structured fields like line, locality, city, state, and pincode. This distinguishes it from siblings such as pincode_to_locality which only resolves a pincode to locality.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pincode_to_locality or state_from_pan. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
normalize_nameAInspect
Normalize an Indian personal name: strip honorifics, title-case, return canonical form and common spelling variants ('Sri'/'Shri'/'Sree'/'Shree').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses core actions (strip honorifics, title-case, return canonical form and variants) but no annotations provided. Does not address edge cases (e.g., empty string, multiple names) or guarantee behavior beyond listed variants.
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 that efficiently covers purpose, action, and output. No filler 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 simple single-param tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers key behavior and examples. Could add expected output format or handling of invalid inputs, but sufficient for basic use.
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 coverage, the description adds significant meaning: specifies that 'name' is an Indian personal name and outlines the processing steps. Provides concrete variant examples ('Sri'/'Shri'/'Sree'/'Shree').
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 specific verbs ('strip', 'title-case', 'return') and identifies the resource ('Indian personal name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'transliterate' by specifying normalization and variant listing.
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 usage for Indian personal names but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings like 'detect_script' or when not to use (e.g., non-names). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pincode_to_localityAInspect
Decode a 6-digit Indian PIN code: region + likely state(s). For exact city lookup, use the bundled India-Post lookup table (premium, private repo).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pincode | 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 returns region and likely state(s), implying approximation. It does not mention behavior for invalid PIN codes or error handling, but overall it provides adequate transparency for a simple lookup 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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a sibling differentiation. Every sentence is informative with no waste.
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's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool returns and notes limitations. It misses explicit mention of error handling for invalid inputs, but that is acceptable for a straightforward 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'pincode'. The description adds that it must be a 6-digit Indian PIN code, which helps, but lacks further detail like validation or format nuances. Baseline is low, so description partially compensates but could be more explicit.
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 decodes a 6-digit Indian PIN code to region and likely state(s), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like normalize_address and state_from_pan by focusing on PIN code decoding, and mentions an alternative for exact lookup.
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 (decode PIN to region/state) and when not (for exact city lookup, use the premium India-Post table), providing clear contextual guidance and an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
state_from_panAInspect
Validate a PAN (Permanent Account Number) and extract the entity type (individual / company / HUF / firm / trust / etc.) from the 4th character. NOTE: PAN's 4th character encodes entity type, not state — this tool surfaces the entity type and validates structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pan | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions validation and extraction but does not disclose what happens with invalid PANs, whether the tool is read-only, or if it requires external calls. Lack of output schema also leaves return behavior unclear.
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 with a helpful NOTE. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the NOTE could be slightly more concise. Overall it 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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and clarifies a nuance. However, it lacks details on the return value (validation result and entity type format), making it less complete than ideal.
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 single parameter 'pan' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining it is a Permanent Account Number and that the tool validates it and extracts entity type. This compensates well for the schema gap.
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 validates a PAN and extracts entity type from the 4th character, with a clarifying note about the encoding. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gstin_info and pincode_to_locality by specifying its unique function.
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 is implied: use when you need PAN validation and entity type extraction. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided. The note clarifies a common misconception but does not direct the agent to other tools for state extraction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
transliterateAInspect
Transliterate text between Indic scripts and Latin. Source/target script names: Devanagari, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Gurmukhi, Gujarati, Oriya, Latin (also accepts ISO 15919 / IAST as Latin variants in the private extended build). Fast common-word path; falls back to Aksharamukha for full coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| to_script | Yes | Target script name. | |
| from_script | Yes | Source script name. |
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 discloses a fast path and fallback mechanism, adding behavioral context beyond the schema.
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-loads the main purpose, and contains 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?
The description covers inputs and behavior but does not describe the output format or return value. While the output may be obvious, a complete description would include this information.
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?
Description adds value by listing acceptable script names and variants (e.g., ISO 15919/IAST for Latin) beyond the schema's brief descriptions. However, the 'text' parameter lacks additional explanation.
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 'Transliterate text between Indic scripts and Latin' with a specific verb and resource list. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like detect_script and normalize_name.
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 'Fast common-word path; falls back to Aksharamukha for full coverage,' which provides some context but lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.
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!