smartscale
Server Details
Credit-card-calibrated visual measurement — the first sellable service.
- 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 3.6/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: instructions for photo capture, description of capabilities, health check, and object scaling. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use consistent snake_case pattern. While some are multi-word and others single-word, they follow the same convention without mixing styles.
With only 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing credit card-based measurement. Each tool is essential and there are no superfluous ones.
The server covers the core workflow: instructions, scaling, health, and capabilities. It lacks a tool for uploading images or retrieving historical results, but these may be handled externally.
Available Tools
4 toolscredit_card_photo_instructionsAInspect
Return user-facing capture instructions for credit-card calibrated measurement.
Use this before asking for a photo. The user should place a standard credit/debit card flat in the same plane as the target objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| measurement_goal | No | ||
| objects_to_measure | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
States it returns instructions and user action. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Could mention what instructions include (e.g., lighting, distance). No mention of failure modes.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no 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?
Adequately explains tool purpose and usage context. Since output schema exists (likely text), return value is clear. Missing parameter guidance reduces completeness slightly.
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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter (measurement_goal, objects_to_measure). Agent has no idea these parameters affect the instructions content.
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?
Clearly states it returns user-facing capture instructions for credit-card calibrated measurement. Distinguishes from siblings: not scaling (scale_objects_from_credit_card) or describing (describe).
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?
Explicitly says to use before asking for a photo, and instructs user behavior (place card flat in same plane). Lacks direct comparison to siblings but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
describeAInspect
Return SmartScale capabilities and input contract.
| 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, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only, informational operation without side effects. However, it does not elaborate on any behavioral nuances such as idempotency or data sensitivity, which is acceptable for a simple describe 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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is well front-loaded and earns its place.
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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a describe tool. It clearly states what is returned (capabilities and input contract), though it could optionally mention that no input is needed.
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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it correctly implies no input 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 what the tool does: 'Return SmartScale capabilities and input contract.' It is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'health' or 'scale_objects_from_credit_card' by focusing on capabilities and contract.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
healthAInspect
Return SmartScale health status.
| 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states it returns health status, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. However, the behavior is benign and no contradictions exist.
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 one short sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose with no 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?
For a simple health check with no parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate. It could mention that it is a lightweight call, but overall 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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, 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?
The description clearly states the tool returns the SmartScale health status, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools focused on credit card photos, descriptions, and scaling.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context is simple, the description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
scale_objects_from_credit_cardBInspect
Scale object pixel dimensions using a standard CR80 credit card reference.
Args:
image_id: Unique photo identifier.
credit_card_pixel_width: Pixel width of the visible credit/debit card.
objects: Objects to scale. Each object needs pixel_width and pixel_height;
label, pixel_area, pixel_perimeter, and confidence are optional.
credit_card_pixel_height: Optional card pixel height for distortion check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objects | Yes | ||
| image_id | Yes | ||
| credit_card_pixel_width | Yes | ||
| credit_card_pixel_height | No |
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 full burden. It describes the scaling process but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or modifies data, nor does it mention side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. The name suggests mutation, but the description is ambiguous.
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 well-structured as a docstring with Args. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Some information about object fields could be more concise, but overall it is efficient.
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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an unseen output schema, the description is fairly complete for inputs but missing behavioral context and return value description. It does not mention prerequisites like having a credit card photo.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter briefly, including that 'objects' require pixel_width and pixel_height, and credit_card_pixel_height is optional for distortion check. However, it lacks details on the output structure or constraints on parameter values.
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 scales object pixel dimensions using a CR80 credit card reference. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'describe' and 'health'.
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 implies usage when a credit card reference is available but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though no sibling tool performs a similar function.
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!