Frankfurter
Server Details
Blended FX rates from 50+ institutions. Tools: get_rates, convert, list_currencies, list_providers.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- lineofflight/frankfurter-mcp
- 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 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: `convert` performs currency conversion with an amount, while `get_rates` retrieves exchange rate data, optionally as a time series. No ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: `convert` and `get_rates`. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal for its domain. While the core operations are covered, additional tools like listing supported currencies could be expected, making the count slightly low but not unreasonable.
The tool surface covers the essential operations: conversion and rate retrieval. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to list available currencies, which agents might need to know valid inputs.
Available Tools
2 toolsconvertAInspect
Convert an amount between two currencies using Frankfurter's blended rate. Returns the rate used for transparency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ISO 4217 target currency. | |
| date | No | Historical date YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for latest. | |
| from | Yes | ISO 4217 source currency. | |
| amount | Yes | Amount in the source currency. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a blended rate and returns the rate used, but omits details like date handling, error behavior, or rate source limitations. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences, 16 words, no wasted text. Front-loaded with purpose, efficient and clear.
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, but the description only mentions returning the rate used, not the converted amount itself. The date parameter is unmentioned. For a 4-parameter tool, this 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?
The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 verb 'Convert' and the resource 'amount between two currencies', with specific mention of 'Frankfurter's blended rate'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_rates' by focusing on conversion rather than just rates, and hints at the return value.
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 for conversion but does not explicitly compare to the sibling tool 'get_rates' or provide when-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_ratesAInspect
Blended multi-source reference exchange rates. No date = latest; date = that day; start+end = time series (requires quotes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | Range end YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive). Requires start and quotes. | |
| base | No | ISO 4217 base currency. Default EUR. | |
| date | No | Single day YYYY-MM-DD. Mutually exclusive with start/end. | |
| start | No | Range start YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive). Requires end and quotes. | |
| quotes | No | ISO 4217 quote codes. Required when start/end is set. | |
| providers | No | Provider keys. Omit for blended (default). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It explains the 'blended multi-source' nature and the effect of date parameters. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for an agent.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the most critical information. No filler words; every phrase adds meaning.
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 complexity (6 parameters, multiple modes) and lack of output schema, the description covers the three use cases thoroughly. Minor absence: no mention of the output format or what 'blended' means in practice, but still sufficient for 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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationships between parameters (e.g., date mutually exclusive with start/end, quotes required for range). This goes beyond individual 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?
Clearly states the resource (reference exchange rates) and the specific operations (latest, single day, time series). Distinguishes from sibling 'convert' by focusing on rate retrieval rather than conversion.
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 describes when to use each parameter combination (no date, date, start+end) and notes that quotes are required for range queries. Lacks explicit mention of when not to use this tool or alternatives like 'convert'.
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!