Benchmark-first release surface with a read-only MCP endpoint and operator CLI.
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 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: benchmarks for performance data, CLI help for terminal commands, and overview for a summary. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow the 'sear_' prefix with a descriptive noun phrase (benchmarks, cli_help, overview), maintaining a consistent and predictable naming pattern.
Three tools is a reasonable count for an informational server, but it is on the lower side. The scope appears focused, so the count fits well without feeling sparse.
The tools cover benchmarks, CLI help, and overview, which are important informational aspects. However, there are no tools for interactive operations or configuration, leaving potential gaps for agents that need to perform actions beyond queries.
sear_benchmarksShow SEAR benchmarksAUse this when you need measured latency, throughput, or visibility artifact status for SEAR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | summary |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the type of data (latency, throughput, artifact status) but does not discuss other behavioral aspects like rate limits or return format. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.
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 front-loads the usage condition. It is concise and free of fluff, but could be improved by briefly noting the optional view parameter.
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 annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and main output. However, it omits explanation of the 'view' parameter and does not describe return values (output schema missing), so agents may not know how to adjust the view or what to expect.
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 sole parameter 'view' has an enum (summary/full) but no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain the parameter's purpose or difference between views, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it. Description fails to compensate for missing schema documentation.
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 provides measured latency, throughput, and visibility artifact status for SEAR, identifying the verb (retrieve/show) and resource (benchmarks). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on benchmark data versus help or overview.
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 starts with 'Use this when you need...', giving explicit context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like sear_overview for broader information, so it lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sear_cli_helpShow SEAR CLI commandsAUse this when you need the safe first commands for verifying or querying a SEAR deployment from the terminal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond reinforcing safety. It does not cover any additional traits like output format or 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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous details. Every part is purposeful and concise.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. The context signals confirm minimal complexity, and the description is sufficient.
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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so no parameter description is needed. The description does not add any param info, which is appropriate and meets the baseline score of 4 for 0-param tools.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: providing safe first commands for verifying or querying a SEAR deployment from the terminal. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sear_benchmarks and sear_overview by focusing on CLI help.
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 ('when you need the safe first commands...'). It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct, making the guidance clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sear_overviewShow SEAR overviewAUse this when you need a concise summary of what SEAR ships and why it exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audience | No | operator |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds context about the content (summary of SEAR's purpose and contents), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions; it aligns with read-only behavior.
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 clear sentence that front-loads the purpose and usage. No wasted 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 overview tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits the parameter's role in tailoring the output, which is a gap in completeness. The description should mention that the summary adapts to the specified audience.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning parameter descriptions are missing. The description does not explain the 'audience' parameter's effect on the output, even though it has meaningful enum values (operator, founder, reviewer). The tool's description should at least hint that the summary may vary by audience.
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?
Description clearly states the tool provides a 'concise summary of what SEAR ships and why it exists.' The verb 'summarize' is implied and the resource 'SEAR overview' is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like sear_benchmarks and sear_cli_help, which cover different aspects.
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 'Use this when you need a concise summary' which gives clear context for when to invoke. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the sibling names imply those are for benchmarks and CLI help, so guidance is adequate.
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.