api-diff-monitor
Server Details
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: api-diff-monitor
- Status
- Healthy
- 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 3.5/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct action: registration, listing, deletion, comparison, history retrieval, and breaking change detection. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., register_endpoint, compare_snapshots). No deviations or mixed conventions.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for an API diff monitor. Each tool serves a necessary function without being overly granular or sparse.
The tools cover the full lifecycle: register, list, compare, delete, and detect breaking changes. Missing an explicit update endpoint tool, but the set is largely complete for core monitoring workflows.
Available Tools
6 toolscompare_snapshotsBInspect
Fetch a registered endpoint and compare against its last snapshot to detect schema changes. Or compare two inline JSON objects directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No | Save snapshot and diff to history (default: true) | |
| snapshot_a | No | Inline "before" JSON (omit endpoint_id for direct comparison) | |
| snapshot_b | No | Inline "after" JSON (omit endpoint_id for direct comparison) | |
| endpoint_id | No | ID of a registered endpoint to fetch and compare |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the high-level outcome ('detect schema changes') but does not detail side effects (e.g., saving to history via 'save' parameter), behavior when both endpoint_id and inline snapshots are provided, or the format of the diff output. The description is insufficient for a mutation 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every word 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?
The tool has 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description does not explain parameter relationships (e.g., mutual exclusivity of endpoint_id vs snapshot_a/b), the role of the 'save' parameter, or the return format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 parameters are already documented. The tool description adds context about the two modes (endpoint_id vs inline snapshots) but does not elaborate on parameter purpose beyond what the schema provides. 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 the tool compares a registered endpoint against its last snapshot or compares two inline JSON objects. It uses specific verbs ('Fetch', 'compare') and specifies the resource ('snapshots'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'detect_breaking_changes' which has overlapping functionality.
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 two usage scenarios (registered endpoint vs inline comparison) but does not give explicit guidance on when to use each or when not to use this tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delete_endpointAInspect
Remove a monitored endpoint and all its snapshots and diff history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint_id | Yes | Endpoint ID to delete |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool removes snapshots and diff history, which is helpful, but it does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or any side effects.
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 of 10 words. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides necessary context.
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 adequately covers the effect (deletion of endpoint and associated data). It could mention that the operation is irreversible, but overall it 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a description for endpoint_id. The description adds value by explaining the consequences of deletion beyond the parameter itself, but the parameter description is minimal.
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 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource as 'monitored endpoint'. It also specifies the cascading effects on snapshots and diff history, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_monitored_endpoints or register_endpoint.
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 the tool is for removing endpoints, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., deactivate instead of delete) or any conditions that must be met before deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
detect_breaking_changesCInspect
Check if a registered endpoint has had any breaking changes (removed fields or type changes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint_id | Yes | Endpoint ID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., boolean, list of changes). The description only states the check but lacks behavioral details.
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?
Description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could include more useful information without losing 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?
Despite low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the output type or format, and does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand usage.
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% (single parameter endpoint_id with description 'Endpoint ID'). Description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in baseline score of 3.
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 checks for breaking changes (removed fields or type changes) in a registered endpoint. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like compare_snapshots, though the focus on 'breaking changes' provides some distinction.
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 vs alternatives like compare_snapshots or get_diff_history. No conditions or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_diff_historyBInspect
Retrieve the schema diff history for a registered endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max diffs to return (default: 20, max: 50) | |
| endpoint_id | Yes | Endpoint ID |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state nondestructive nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or response 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 sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core 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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate but does not specify what the diff history contains, pagination, or how to interpret results. It meets the basic requirement but leaves gaps.
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 adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 a specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'schema diff history for a registered endpoint'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_snapshots' and 'delete_endpoint'.
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 such as 'compare_snapshots' or 'detect_breaking_changes'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_monitored_endpointsAInspect
List all registered API endpoints being monitored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description indicates a read-only operation (list all). For a simple 0-parameter tool, it sufficiently discloses behavior without contradictions.
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, concise sentence that conveys the purpose without unnecessary words. Every part is relevant.
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 and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it could benefit from mentioning the output format, though not strictly required.
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 no parameters, so the input schema already covers everything. The description adds no param info, which is acceptable given baseline for 0 parameters is 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 lists all registered API endpoints being monitored, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_endpoint or register_endpoint.
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 when to use (when you need a list of monitored endpoints) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
register_endpointBInspect
Register an API endpoint to monitor for schema changes. Provide name, url, and optionally method/headers/description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | API URL to monitor | |
| body | No | Request body (for POST/PUT) | |
| name | Yes | Identifier for this endpoint | |
| method | No | HTTP method (default: GET) | |
| headers | No | Request headers | |
| description | No | Optional description |
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 states the tool registers an endpoint, implying a side effect, but does not disclose idempotency, permissions needed, or what happens if the endpoint already exists. Minimal behavioral context.
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 fronts the purpose and then lists parameters. It is concise and efficient, 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?
Given the tool has 6 parameters including nested objects, and no output schema, the description lacks detail on return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like whether it pings the URL. It is incomplete for a moderately complex 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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description only mentions a subset (name, url, optionally method/headers/description) and adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 registers an API endpoint to monitor for schema changes, using a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from siblings like delete_endpoint and list_monitored_endpoints.
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 required and optional parameters but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to register vs. already have endpoints, or any prerequisites.
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!