Publish artifacts to one stable public temp.md link that updates in place. No account needed.
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 3.7/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: status inspection, listing, publishing, token recovery, restoration, comment toggling, snapshot, and updating. No two tools have overlapping functionality.
Tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_temp_status, list_temps, update_temp). The only exception is recover_update_token, which combines two actions but is still understandable. Overall consistent with snake_case.
With 8 tools, the server covers core operations for managing temporary content without being overwhelming. The number is well-scoped for its domain.
The tool set covers creation, update, status, and restoration, but lacks a delete or unpublish tool. This is a notable gap for full lifecycle management, though expiration may handle it.
get_temp_statusGet Temp statusAInspect lifecycle, expiry, restore eligibility, ownership, moderation, and settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| temp_id | Yes | The Temp ID. | |
| update_token | No | Scoped Temp update token. May be omitted when the MCP Authorization header contains an account API key that owns the Temp. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and open-world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds context about what aspects are inspected, but does not disclose additional behaviors like error conditions or performance implications.
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 of 9 words, front-loaded with the action verb, with no redundant or irrelevant 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 read-only status tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects inspected. However, it could mention return format or structure for completeness.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides for temp_id and update_token; it only lists the aspects inspected.
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 the specific verb 'Inspect' and lists the resources/aspects (lifecycle, expiry, restore eligibility, ownership, moderation, settings), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_temp or restore_temp.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_temps or update_temp, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_tempsList account TempsAList Temps owned by the account API key supplied in the MCP Authorization header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the ownership detail (by account API key) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error handling. Annotations already cover read-only and open-world hints.
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 of 13 words with no redundancy or waste, efficiently conveying the tool's 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 parameters, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description is fully complete for this simple list operation. It specifies the scope of Temps listed (owned by account key).
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 tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (none). Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4; no additional param info 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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'Temps' with ownership scope (by account API key), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_temp_status or publish_temp.
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 states what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it or how it compares to other temp tools). Usage context is implied by the list nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
publish_tempPublish a new TempAPublish an inline text or base64 bundle to a stable public URL. Send index.html as the main page. Repeated identical calls are idempotent. If the MCP connection uses a temp.md account API key, the Temp is owned by that account immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| spa_mode | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral detail: idempotency of identical calls and immediate ownership based on API key, which goes beyond the 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 three sentences, front-loaded with key action and constraints. It is concise without fluff, though slightly more structure could improve readability.
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?
No output schema is provided, yet the description does not mention the return value (e.g., the public URL). It also omits constraints like file size limits or error conditions, leaving important gaps for a publishing 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 description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning for the files parameter (inline text/base64 bundle, index.html as main page) but does not explain title, spa_mode, or idempotency_key. Overall, parameter semantics are poorly supported.
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 'publish' and resource 'Temp' (inline text or base64 bundle to a stable public URL). It mentions the main page as index.html, distinguishing this from sibling tools like update_temp or restore_temp.
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 notes idempotency and account ownership, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., update_temp). Usage context is implied but not contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recover_update_tokenRecover a Temp update tokenBRotate every prior scoped update token and return one replacement. Requires an owning account API key in the MCP Authorization header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| temp_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool rotates all prior tokens (invalidating them) and returns one replacement. This aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. No contradiction.
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 concise with two sentences: one for the action and one for a key requirement. No unnecessary information. Front-loaded with the main 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main action and an authorization requirement. However, it lacks parameter explanation and details about the return replacement, leaving gaps in completeness.
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 temp_id is not described in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning, but it does not explain what temp_id is or how to use it. The name is somewhat self-explanatory, but insufficient for an agent.
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 ('rotate every prior scoped update token and return one replacement'), using specific verbs and resources. The title 'Recover a Temp update token' provides context. However, it could be more explicit about the use case (e.g., when the user loses a token).
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 ('Requires an owning account API key') but does not guide when to use this tool versus siblings like restore_temp or publish_temp. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
restore_tempRestore an expired TempAReactivate an expired Temp during its restore grace period without changing its URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| temp_id | Yes | The Temp ID. | |
| update_token | No | Scoped Temp update token. May be omitted when the MCP Authorization header contains an account API key that owns the Temp. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavior (reactivate, no URL change) and a precondition (grace period), which adds value beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint). However, it does not detail what happens on success or failure, nor any side effects consistent with openWorldHint. The transparency is adequate but could be richer.
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?
A single 12-word sentence that is front-loaded and precise. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy. The description is highly concise and easy to parse quickly.
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 (2 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it does, to what, and a key constraint. It does not explain the grace period duration or error scenarios, but for a straightforward operation this is sufficient. The presence of annotations compensates for missing output schema details.
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 does not add specific semantics to the parameters (temp_id, update_token) beyond the schema. While it provides context about the operation, it offers no extra clarification on parameter usage or constraints. Thus, it meets the minimum threshold without enhancement.
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 'Reactivate' and the specific resource 'an expired Temp'. It adds crucial constraints: 'during its restore grace period' and 'without changing its URL', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_temp or publish_temp. This specificity makes the purpose unmistakable.
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 implicitly defines when to use this tool (only for expired Temps in the restore grace period) and when not (otherwise). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions to avoid, leaving some ambiguity. The context is clear but lacks direct reference to siblings like get_temp_status or list_temps for determining eligibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
set_commentsEnable or disable commentsBToggle pinned visitor feedback on a Temp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | ||
| temp_id | Yes | The Temp ID. | |
| update_token | No | Scoped Temp update token. May be omitted when the MCP Authorization header contains an account API key that owns the Temp. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the tool modifies state. The description's verb 'toggle' aligns with that but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether comments are enabled/disabled all at once, or what happens to existing comments). With annotations present, the description provides minimal extra value.
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 is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It is appropriately concise, though slightly lacking in detail for completeness.
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 no output schema, so the description should explain return values or results. It does not mention what the output looks like, any side effects, or confirmation messages. It gives minimal context for the agent to understand the full behavior.
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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema, such as how the 'enabled' boolean works or the effect of 'update_token'. Since coverage is not high (<80%), the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 toggles a specific feature (pinned visitor feedback) on a Temp, using a strong verb (toggle) and a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_temp_status or list_temps which are read-only or creation 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for its appropriate use. It only states what it does without usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
snapshot_tempFreeze a snapshotAInspectCreate a fixed snapshot URL for the current Version while the canonical URL continues to track the latest Version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| temp_id | Yes | The Temp ID. | |
| update_token | No | Scoped Temp update token. May be omitted when the MCP Authorization header contains an account API key that owns the Temp. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include openWorldHint=true but the description does not elaborate on side effects. It adds context that the canonical URL remains live, but does not discuss prerequisites or failure modes. No contradiction with 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 (18 words) that is front-loaded with the purpose. 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?
Without an output schema, the description does not explain return values, but the core concept is clearly conveyed. The openWorldHint suggests possible side effects, but the description is adequate for a simple snapshot creation 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 67%, with descriptions for temp_id and update_token. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions provide. 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 'Create a fixed snapshot URL' and contrasts with the canonical URL tracking the latest version. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_temps' or 'restore_temp' by focusing on snapshot freezing.
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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as 'publish_temp' or 'restore_temp'. Usage is implied but not contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_tempUpdate an existing TempAAtomically publish a new inline bundle behind the same canonical URL. The previous Version stays live if this call fails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| temp_id | Yes | The Temp ID. | |
| spa_mode | No | ||
| update_token | No | Scoped Temp update token. May be omitted when the MCP Authorization header contains an account API key that owns the Temp. | |
| idempotency_key | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal idempotent, destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds key behavioral details: atomicity and that 'the previous Version stays live if this call fails.' This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 with no redundancy. Every word adds value, clearly conveying the core purpose and behavioral guarantee.
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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on return values, error states, or success behavior. For a complex update tool, more context on outcomes would improve completeness.
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 only 33%, but the description provides no additional parameter information. It does not explain update_token or idempotency_key usage, which would be valuable given low schema 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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Atomically publish a new inline bundle behind the same canonical URL.' It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing update from sibling tools like publish_temp by emphasizing it's an in-place update.
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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like publish_temp or restore_temp. However, the atomicity and rollback behavior are mentioned, providing implicit context for safe usage.
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.