api-schema-drift-detector
Server Details
Cloudflare Workers MCP server: api-schema-drift-detector
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- lazymac2x/api-schema-drift-detector-api
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a specific aspect of schema comparison: breaking changes between versions, runtime drift detection, and data validation. While they all involve schemas, their purposes are distinct enough to avoid confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase, hyphenated compound nouns (e.g., 'breaking-change-analyzer', 'drift-detector', 'schema-validator'). Though lacking a verb_noun structure, the style is uniform.
Three tools perfectly scope the server's purpose—covering version analysis, runtime drift, and validation—without being overly minimal or excessive.
The tool set covers the primary operations needed for schema drift detection: comparing versions, detecting runtime deviations, and validating compliance. Minor operations like listing schemas or generating reports are absent but not critical for core functionality.
Available Tools
3 toolsbreaking-change-analyzerBInspect
Analyzes breaking changes between two schema versions
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newSchema | Yes | New schema version | |
| oldSchema | Yes | Previous schema version |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states analysis without any mention of side effects, permissions, or output structure.
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 sentence that is direct and free of extraneous information, making it easy to parse.
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 description fails to explain what constitutes a breaking change, how results are returned, or any constraints, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.
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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, matching the baseline expectation.
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 analyzes 'breaking changes between two schema versions,' specifying a verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like drift-detector and schema-validator.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, and no context about prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
drift-detectorBInspect
Detects differences between actual API response and expected schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | Yes | Expected JSON schema | |
| response | Yes | Actual API response |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Does not disclose what kind of differences are detected (structural, value, etc.) or if it is read-only. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden, but it is insufficient.
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 sentence is concise but lacks necessary detail. Front-loading is adequate, but the brevity trades off completeness.
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?
No output schema and minimal description. Does not explain return value or behavior. With siblings, more differentiation and operational context would be needed for completeness.
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 clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for full coverage.
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 detects differences between actual API response and expected schema. Verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like schema-validator and breaking-change-analyzer.
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?
Implied usage: use when comparing a response to a schema. No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. Lacks comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
schema-validatorBInspect
Validates if data conforms to a JSON schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Data to validate | |
| schema | Yes | JSON schema to validate against |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states basic purpose without disclosing behavior like error handling, return format, or 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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it is under-specified and lacks useful detail for an agent.
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?
No output schema or annotations; description does not explain return values or behavior. For a validation tool, this is incomplete—agents need to know what 'validates' means in terms of output.
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% with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 validates data against a JSON schema. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling tools like breaking-change-analyzer and drift-detector.
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 alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
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!