narrative-engine
Server Details
Grant, investor & policy narrative generation for conservation work.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- 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 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: describe_agent is a meta-tool for agent capabilities, while translate_narrative focuses on transforming data into narratives. No overlap exists.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: describe_agent and translate_narrative, with clear and distinct verbs and nouns.
With only 2 tools, the server is on the low end of the typical 3-15 range. While it might be scoped narrowly, it feels thin for a narrative engine.
The server lacks any retrieval, update, or delete functionality for narratives. Only a creation tool exists, leaving obvious gaps in lifecycle management.
Available Tools
2 toolsdescribe_agentAInspect
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It states the tool is a 'self-description' and mentions what it covers (capabilities, inputs, outputs), but does not disclose potential side effects (none expected) or detailed behavior beyond that. The description is adequate but could elaborate on the output format.
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 essential information efficiently. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately front-loaded with 'Fleet-standard self-description'.
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 has no parameters, an output schema exists (not shown but present), and the sibling context is minimal, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's role and scope. However, adding a brief note on when to invoke (e.g., for introspection) would make it perfect.
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 schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. No additional info is required.
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: 'Fleet-standard self-description: capabilities, inputs, outputs.' It uses a specific verb ('describe') and resource (agent), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'translate_narrative' which handles translation, not introspection.
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 guidelines on when to use or when not to use this tool. Usage is implied (to learn about the agent's capabilities), but there is no mention of alternatives or conditions. A score of 3 reflects minimal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
translate_narrativeAInspect
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| format_type | Yes | ||
| key_message | 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only lists parameter options without disclosing behavioral traits such as resource limits, side effects (e.g., does it store or modify data?), authentication needs, or error handling. The agent has little insight into what happens during execution.
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 brief and front-loads the main action. The list of enum options is embedded in the description, which is somewhat unstructured but still usable. It earns its place without 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 3 required, nested object, output schema present), the description provides the list of enum values but is incomplete: it omits details on 'key_message' and 'agent_output', and does not clarify when to use this tool over the sibling. The output schema may supplement return information, but behavioral context is lacking.
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 significant value by enumerating the allowed values for 'audience_type' and 'format_type'. However, it does not explain the 'key_message' parameter (its purpose or format) or 'agent_output' (the expected object structure). This partial coverage merits a 4.
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: 'Translate raw ecological/agent data into a decision-maker-ready narrative.' This specifies the verb (translate), the subject (raw ecological/agent data), and the output (narrative), which is distinct from the sibling tool 'describe_agent' (likely for describing the agent itself).
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 lists audience_type and format_type options, providing guidance on parameter values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tool 'describe_agent' or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not explained.
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!