Search 1,580 certification exam blueprints: domains, scoring, prerequisites, compare. No API key.
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.
Average 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: comparing exams, getting full blueprint details, listing certifying bodies, and searching exams. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a verb_noun pattern using snake_case: compare_exams, get_exam_blueprint, list_certifying_bodies, search_exams. Perfectly consistent.
Four tools cover the core needs for a certification exam database: search, list vendors, get details, and compare. The count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers search, details, comparison, and vendor listing. Minor gap: no direct tool to update or filter searches by multiple criteria, but search is flexible enough to address most needs.
compare_examsAInspectCompare 2–8 certification exams side by side — price, duration, passing score, question count, and domain count. Call for 'X vs Y', 'which is harder/cheaper', 'easiest cloud cert', 'CCNA vs Network+'. Accepts exam ids, codes, or names; each row links a free practice exam.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exams | Yes | 2–8 exam ids, codes, or names to compare |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states input flexibility (ids, codes, or names) and output behavior (each row links a free practice exam). It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or any side effects, but as a read-only comparison tool, the transparency is adequate.
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 sentences pack purpose, usage examples, input details, and output behavior. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.
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 hints at output ('side by side', 'each row links...'). It covers input types, use cases, and a key output feature. Missing details on error handling or return format, but for a simple comparison tool with one parameter, it is largely 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter 'exams'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema (input types and range already covered). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade but also does not enhance parameter 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: compare 2-8 certification exams side by side on specific attributes (price, duration, etc.). It also provides example intents ('X vs Y', 'which is harder/cheaper') that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_exam_blueprint (single exam) and search_exams (broad search).
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 explicit when-to-use examples ('X vs Y', 'which is harder/cheaper') and implies when not to use (e.g., single exam details go to get_exam_blueprint). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid this tool, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_exam_blueprintAInspectGet the full published blueprint for ONE certification exam: domain/objective breakdown with topic weights, passing score, question count & types, duration, price, prerequisites, retake & renewal policy, languages, and the official source URL. Call this for 'what's on the X exam', 'how is X weighted by domain', 'prerequisites for X', 'passing score for X', 'how long is X'. Accepts an exam_id, exam_code, or certification name. Includes a free practice-exam link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exam | Yes | Exam id, exam code, or certification name |
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 the tool fetches a published blueprint and lists many returned details (e.g., passing score, prerequisites). It does not mention authorization or side effects, but as a read operation, this is acceptable.
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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes actionable examples. It is efficient though slightly verbose in listing details, but still 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?
Given no output schema, the description comprehensively lists all expected return fields (domain breakdown, weights, passing score, etc.). The tool has only one parameter, and the context is fully 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'exam'. The description restates that it accepts exam_id, exam_code, or certification name, which adds no new information beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 retrieves the full published blueprint for one certification exam, listing specific components like domain breakdown, weights, passing score, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_exams and list_certifying_bodies by its specific purpose.
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 call the tool with example natural language queries (e.g., 'what's on the X exam') and specifies accepted inputs (exam_id, exam_code, certification name). It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_certifying_bodiesAInspectList the 222 certifying bodies / vendors covered by Cert Atlas with exam counts. Call for 'what certification providers/vendors are covered', 'how many AWS/Microsoft/Cisco certs'. Optionally filter by a substring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contains | No | Optional substring filter on the body name, e.g. 'micro', 'aws' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only listing operation but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, limits, or side effects. The description is 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?
The description consists of two efficient sentences that convey purpose, scope, and filter option without extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential information. It omits details like response format or pagination, but these are minor 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example substring ('micro', 'aws') and restating the filter purpose, slightly enhancing understanding beyond the 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 explicitly states the verb 'list', the resource 'certifying bodies / vendors', and includes detail about exam counts. Example queries further clarify the tool's domain, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with exams.
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 provides clear contexts for calling the tool ('what certification providers/vendors are covered', 'how many... certs') and mentions optional filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_examsAInspectSearch 1,580 certification & professional exams by name, code, certifying body, or vendor. Call this whenever a user mentions a certification or exam — e.g. AWS Solutions Architect, CISSP, CompTIA Security+, PMP, CCNA, NCLEX, CFA, Azure AZ-104, CKA — or asks what certs a body offers. Returns matching exams with code, certifying body, question count, domain count, and a free practice-exam link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| query | No | Keywords: certification name, exam code, vendor, or topic | |
| vendor_slug | No | Filter by vendor slug, e.g. 'aws', 'microsoft', 'comptia' | |
| certifying_body | No | Filter by certifying body, e.g. 'AWS', 'CompTIA', 'ISC2', 'Microsoft' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (code, certifying body, question count, domain count, practice-exam link) and the total dataset size (1,580 exams). However, it does not mention pagination behavior, sorting, or case sensitivity, which are minor omissions 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 extremely concise: two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and usage examples, the second describes the return format. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 (optional filters, no required parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers the expected behavior: what to search, how to filter, and what is returned. Sibling tools cover other aspects, so no missing 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing searchable attributes (name, code, certifying body, vendor) and providing many concrete query examples that illustrate parameter usage, exceeding what the schema descriptions provide.
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 searches certification exams and provides specific examples of exam names and when to use it. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on search, while siblings like compare_exams and get_exam_blueprint handle other tasks.
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 says 'Call this whenever a user mentions a certification or exam' and gives concrete examples, providing strong guidance on when to invoke the tool. It implies that for other specific tasks, sibling tools should be used.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.