narrative-engine
Server Details
Grant, investor & policy narrative generation for conservation work.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- jdhart81/viridis-agent-fleet
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- viridis-agent-fleet
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 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one is for self-description of the agent, the other translates ecological data into narratives for different audiences and formats. No overlap.
Both tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (describe_agent, translate_narrative), which is clear and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'narrative engine' domain. While not critically underpopulated, it borders on insufficient for typical multi-step workflows.
The tool surface is severely limited: only self-description and a single translation operation. Missing are tools for creating narratives from scratch, editing, comparing, or managing templates, making the set incomplete for the stated domain.
Available Tools
2 toolsdescribe_agentBInspect
Fleet-standard self-description: capabilities, inputs, outputs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states it describes capabilities, inputs, outputs, implying a read-only introspection. However, it fails to explicitly state it has no side effects or authentication requirements, which is minimal for a safe 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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part adds information: subject ('Fleet-standard self-description'), scope ('capabilities, inputs, outputs').
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?
Tool is simple with no params and an output schema exists. Description is minimal but sufficient for a self-description tool. However, it does not hint at output format or structure, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.
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?
Tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage. Per instructions, baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist.
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 'self-description: capabilities, inputs, outputs' indicating the tool describes itself. It distinguishes from sibling 'translate_narrative' by being a meta-tool. However, the phrase 'Fleet-standard' is jargon that may not be universal, slightly reducing clarity.
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 the sibling 'translate_narrative' or any alternatives. The description does not mention context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
translate_narrativeCInspect
Translate raw ecological/agent data into a decision-maker-ready narrative.
audience_type: board_member | general_public | grant_funder |
institutional_investor | journalist | policymaker | regulator |
retail_investor | scientist
format_type: academic_paper | executive_summary | grant_proposal |
investor_deck | newsletter | policy_brief | press_release
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | No | ||
| format_type | Yes | ||
| key_message | No | ||
| payment_ref | No | ||
| agent_output | Yes | ||
| audience_type | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.) are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., database writes), authentication needs, rate limits, or error behaviors. The tool could be a pure transformation, but this is not explicitly stated, leaving ambiguity.
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 short (two lines plus a list) and gets to the point. However, the list is inline with newlines, which could be better structured (e.g., using bullet points). There is no unnecessary content, so it earns a high score for conciseness.
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 6 parameters, a nested object, and an output schema (not shown). The description explains the purpose and gives parameter hints for two parameters, but fails to mention that 'agent_output' is required or what it should contain. It also doesn't describe return values, though output schema exists. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'audience_type' and 'format_type' by listing possible values, but does not explain 'agent_output' (an object with no defined structure), 'key_message', 'request_id', or 'payment_ref'. The description covers only two out of six parameters, which is insufficient for a tool with many 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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Translate') and resource ('raw ecological/agent data') and specifies the output ('decision-maker-ready narrative'). It also lists audience and format types, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'describe_agent', so it loses some clarity.
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 context on when to use the tool by listing audience types and formats, implying use cases like generating a press release or policy brief. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, such as when to use 'describe_agent' instead. Guidance is implicit but not thorough.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceAI-powered spatial intelligence for landscape restoration, enabling queries on cadastral parcels, species, climate data, and policy documents across Central Asia.Last updated1Apache 2.0
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceBridges AI models with 24 years of Global Forest Watch data across 165+ countries, enabling natural language queries for deforestation and carbon emission insights.Last updatedApache 2.0
- Flicense-quality-maintenanceAutomates carbon credit project registration document review, transforming 6-8 hour manual reviews into 60-90 minute guided workflows with automated document discovery, evidence extraction, cross-validation, and compliance report generation.Last updated
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceAutonomously discovers non-dilutive funding opportunities from Grants.gov, generates AI-powered pitch drafts using Gemini, and integrates with Google Workspace to create email drafts and calendar reminders for grant deadlines.Last updated6MIT
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.