mzizi-mcp
Server Details
Read-only MCP over the Mzizi design system registry — nodes, components, ownership.
- 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 3.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single component, checking database health, listing collections, and listing components with filters. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_component, get_database_status, list_collections, list_components) with snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused read-only document store service. It is neither too thin nor too heavy for the apparent functionality.
The set covers reading and listing operations but lacks any write tools (create, update, delete), which is a notable gap if the domain expects full lifecycle management of components.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_componentAInspect
Fetch one component as its full JSON document — one read, everything in it (metadata, owner, sources/descriptors, legacy source code, files, docs).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component name, e.g. 'button', 'nyuchi-tokens' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation with 'one read' and lists returned data, but lacks details on error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if the component does not 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently enumerates the contents. Every word adds value.
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 (single parameter, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description adequately informs about the tool's output. It could mention error cases, 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?
The input schema already provides a clear description of the single required parameter 'name' with example values. The description adds no further parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 3 given 100% schema 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?
The description clearly states it fetches one component's full JSON document, specifying the included fields (metadata, owner, sources, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_components (which likely returns summaries) and get_database_status or list_collections (different resources).
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 use for retrieving full details of a single component, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are given, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_database_statusAInspect
Diagnostic info — Supabase connection health and document-store row count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature or required permissions, but only states the output content. It does not indicate whether it is safe to call repeatedly or if it has 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?
A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('Diagnostic info') and specifies the exact outputs, with no unnecessary 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 diagnostic tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It could further clarify what 'connection health' entails or provide example values, but it is sufficient for basic understanding given the sibling context.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail 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 specifies the tool returns diagnostic information about Supabase connection health and document-store row count, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on components and collections.
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 such as get_component or list_collections, and no mention of prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_collectionsAInspect
List the per-node collections (n1_tokens … n10_documentation) with total counts and ownership breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists collections with counts and ownership breakdown, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe or idempotent, which is minimal for a list operation.
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 is front-loaded and concise. It communicates the resource, output details, and provides specific examples without any redundant information.
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 (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It sufficiently explains what is listed and what information is returned, covering all necessary context for an 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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate further.
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 'List' and the specific resource 'per-node collections' with a range of examples (n1_tokens … n10_documentation), and it indicates what is returned (total counts and ownership breakdown). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_components' which lists components, not collections.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that this tool is for listing per-node collections with statistics, but no exclusion criteria or comparisons with sibling tools are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_componentsAInspect
List components from the document store. Optionally filter by node (1–10) or owner (bundu | nyuchi | mzizi | framework). Returns the lean index — use get_component for the full document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| owner | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a 'lean index' and supports optional filters, but does not explicitly declare it as read-only, mention pagination behavior, or address what happens with no results. Adequate but could be more informative.
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 with no redundant information. Front-loaded with the main action and followed by optional filters and a clear pointer to the sibling tool. Every word is necessary.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description lacks details about the return format (e.g., what fields are in the lean index) and does not mention the limit parameter. It covers the core functionality but leaves gaps in completeness for a tool with three optional parameters.
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 'node' range and 'owner' enum values (already in schema) but completely omits the 'limit' parameter. Missing one of three parameters, providing minimal extra meaning beyond schema 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 'List components from the document store' and distinguishes from sibling 'get_component' by noting it returns the lean index versus the full document. Provides specific verb and resource.
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 get_component for full documents, indicating when not to use this tool. However, does not discuss other siblings like list_collections or provide when-to-use guidance beyond the filter options.
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!