mzizi-mcp
Server Details
Read-only MCP over the Mzizi design system registry — nodes, components, ownership.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- 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 3.6/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or operation: component details, database status, node documents, collection listing, component listing, document reading, and version history. Descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, list_, read_), with verbs indicating the type of retrieval (single item, list, or versioned history).
7 tools is well-scoped for a read-focused document store server. Each tool covers a necessary operation without redundancy or overwhelming complexity.
The tool set provides comprehensive read coverage: listing collections, reading documents, component details, version history, and diagnostics. However, missing write operations (create/update/delete) mean the surface is incomplete for full CRUD, but this aligns with a read-only purpose.
Available Tools
7 toolsget_componentAInspect
Fetch one component as its full JSON document (metadata, owner, sources/descriptors, files, source code, docs) from the components collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component name, e.g. 'accordion', 'button' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only discloses the return structure; it omits any behavioral traits like side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.
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 efficiently conveys the action and output, with no extraneous 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?
For a simple fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return content, though it lacks usage guidance and behavioral 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter description for 'name'.
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 that it fetches one component as a full JSON document, listing specific contents (metadata, owner, etc.) and names the collection, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 a single component's full details but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_components or state when to use this over alternatives.
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.
get_node_documentsCInspect
List documents for an ecosystem node (1–10), optionally scoped to a collection. Returns each document's full JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| collection | No |
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. It only states the tool returns full JSON and implies a read operation, but omits details like authentication needs, rate limits, 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 extremely concise with two sentences covering the core functionality. No redundant words or unnecessary detail.
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 annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage in the description, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on usage, pagination behavior, and filtering options.
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 adds meaning for 'node' (range) and 'collection' (scoping), but does not explain 'limit' or 'owner', leaving gaps.
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 documents for a specific ecosystem node, with optional collection scoping. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not explicitly distinguish from read_documents or siblings.
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 like read_documents or list_collections. There is no mention of prerequisites 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.
list_collectionsAInspect
List every collection in the Mzizi document store with document counts and per-owner breakdown (components, primitives, skills, brand, styling-, documentation-, genetic-code-*, fundi, …).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose authentication needs, performance implications, or limitations (e.g., pagination). The behavior is straightforward, so a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the main action efficiently. The list of owner categories extends the sentence but adds detail. Slightly wordy but still concise.
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 parameterless read operation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what details are returned. It is missing potential info on authentication or pagination, but is largely adequate.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by specifying that output includes document counts and per-owner breakdown, which is not in the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params 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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('collections') and details what information is returned (document counts and per-owner breakdown). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component or list_components.
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 alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no prerequisites or context about selection criteria.
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 (lean index) from the components collection. Optionally filter by owner. Use get_component for the full document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| owner | No |
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 burden. It says 'lean index', implying a lightweight read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose any potential side effects, performance considerations, or access requirements.
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 purpose, no redundant 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?
For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and owner filtering but omits details on the limit parameter and return format. It is adequate for simple use but not fully complete.
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 add meaning. It explains the owner parameter (filtering) but does not mention the limit parameter, its default, or constraints. This partially compensates for the schema's lack of 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 clearly states it lists components (lean index) from the components collection, with optional filtering by owner. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling get_component by noting that get_component returns the full document.
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 mentions optional filtering by owner and directs to use get_component for full documents, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus an alternative. However, it does not include exclusionary guidance for other siblings like list_collections.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_documentsAInspect
Read documents from a collection in the Mzizi document store. Omit name to list a collection; pass name for one document. Use list_collections to discover collection names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Document name; omit to list the whole collection | |
| limit | No | ||
| owner | No | Filter by owner, e.g. 'nyuchi', 'framework' | |
| dnaRole | No | Filter by dnaRole, e.g. 'core', 'swappable' | |
| collection | Yes | Collection name, e.g. 'components', 'skills', 'brand' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation and dual behavior (list vs. single document). Since no annotations are provided, it carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it lacks details on authorization, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior despite the 'limit' parameter.
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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide direct usage guidance. No extraneous words are present.
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 covers the main behavior (list vs. single document) and references a sibling tool. It omits details on pagination and filtering (though parameter descriptions exist), and does not describe response structure, but remains fairly complete for a read operation.
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?
With 80% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the dual role of 'name' (omit to list, pass for one doc) and referencing 'list_collections' for discovery. This provides meaningful context beyond the schema descriptions for the 'name' and 'collection' parameters.
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 'Read', the resource 'documents from a collection', and distinguishes between listing and single document retrieval by omitting or providing the 'name' parameter. It also references the sibling tool 'list_collections' for discovering collection names, which enhances clarity.
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 explicit guidance on when to omit or pass the 'name' parameter, and directs users to 'list_collections' for collection discovery. However, it does not explicitly exclude this tool for other sibling operations (e.g., 'get_component'), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_versionsCInspect
Read the version-history snapshots for a document (version_number, change_type, comment, snapshot).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| collection | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions reading snapshots but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination, or ordering. The tool is likely idempotent, but this is not stated.
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 redundancy. However, it lacks structure and could be expanded with brief parameter explanations without sacrificing 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?
The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not cover required parameters, their roles, or return value structure. Important details like limit defaults and maximums are omitted.
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%, and the description only adds meaning for output fields, not parameters. It does not explain 'name' or 'collection' beyond their presence in the schema, and 'limit' is not described. The added value 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 clearly states the tool reads version-history snapshots for a document and lists the fields returned. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like read_documents and get_component.
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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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!