codebook-mcp
Server Details
Exact reference codes for AI agents: countries, currencies with minor units, HTTP status, MIME.
- 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 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a completely distinct domain (countries, currencies, HTTP statuses, MIME types), with no overlap in purpose or output.
All tools follow a consistent noun_info pattern in snake_case, making names predictable and easy to understand.
Four tools is a tight, focused set for a reference server—each one earns its place with no bloat or missing essentials.
The server covers common reference lookups (countries, currencies, HTTP, MIME); adding timezones or language codes would be nice but current set is coherent and useful.
Available Tools
4 toolscountry_infoAInspect
Look up a country by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 or alpha-3 code. Returns both codes, English name, and the primary ISO 4217 currency. Use instead of recalling codes from memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Alpha-2 ("JP") or alpha-3 ("JPN") country code, case-insensitive. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool returns both codes, English name, and primary currency. However, it lacks details on error handling for invalid codes, rate limits, or any side effects, which is a gap for a lookup 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 concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, input, output, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no extraneous 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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, high schema coverage), the description is mostly complete. It covers input format and output contents. However, it could add a note about invalid code behavior or mention that it's a read-only lookup. Nevertheless, it adequately supports the agent's decision-making.
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%, and the parameter description clearly explains the expected input format (alpha-2 or alpha-3, case-insensitive). The description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a 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's purpose: 'Look up a country by ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 or alpha-3 code.' It specifies both the input (country code) and output (codes, name, currency), distinguishing it from sibling tools like currency_info or http_status.
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 a clear usage guideline: 'Use instead of recalling codes from memory.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the context of sibling tools and the straightforward nature of the lookup make this sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
currency_infoAInspect
Look up an ISO 4217 currency: name and minor units (decimal places). Critical for payment APIs — e.g. JPY has 0 minor units (¥500 is amount=500, NOT 50000), KWD has 3.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ISO 4217 code, e.g. "JPY", "USD", case-insensitive. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It mentions the look-up returns name and minor units, but does not specify error handling for invalid codes, response structure, or whether additional fields are returned.
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: first defines the core function, second provides a critical usage example. Every word adds value, and the example explains minor units concretely.
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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately hints at the return (name and minor units). Could mention validation against the ISO 4217 list, but the example helps. Overall sufficient for a simple look-up 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema's own description (case-insensitivity). No elaboration on format or constraints.
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 looks up an ISO 4217 currency, returning name and minor units. It distinguishes itself from siblings like country_info, http_status, and mime_type by focusing specifically on currency data.
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?
Provides explicit context that the tool is critical for payment APIs, with concrete examples (JPY, KWD). Does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tools make the domain clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
http_statusAInspect
Look up the official reason phrase for an HTTP status code, or list all codes in a class (e.g. 4xx). Use instead of recalling status semantics from memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Status code (e.g. 422), or a class number 1-5 to list that whole class (e.g. 4 → all 4xx). |
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 accurately describes the tool as a lookup/list operation with no side effects implied. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no destructive actions,' the nature of looking up a status code is clearly non-destructive and the description is adequate.
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 packs the essential information: what the tool does (look up/list) and how it can be used (status codes or classes). It is concise and front-loaded with 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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema needed), the description is complete. It covers both usage modes (single code and class listing) and provides adequate context for an AI agent to use 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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description of the 'code' parameter. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it restates the same functionality. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides the necessary semantics.
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 looks up official reason phrases for HTTP status codes or lists all codes in a class. The verb 'look up' and resource 'HTTP status code reason phrase' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings which are unrelated lookup tools (country, currency, mime type).
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 explicitly says 'Use instead of recalling status semantics from memory,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tools are in different domains.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mime_typeAInspect
Look up the MIME type for a file extension, or find extensions for a MIME type. Use instead of guessing Content-Type values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | A file extension ("xlsx", ".pdf") or a MIME type ("application/json"). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes the lookup behavior but lacks details like case sensitivity, result format, or limits. Since no annotations are provided, this bears more burden; adequate but not fully transparent.
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 concise sentences, no waste, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence 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 the simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description is complete and sufficient for correct use.
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, and description adds value by giving concrete examples ('.pdf', 'application/json') and clarifying acceptable formats.
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 it maps file extensions to MIME types and vice versa, with a specific verb 'look up' and distinct resource. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no confusion.
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 instead of guessing Content-Type values, providing clear context. Does not mention when not to use, but no sibling conflicts exist.
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!