osf-data-marketplace
Server Details
Verifiable public-domain US gov & scientific data for AI agents. Pay-per-record via x402 USDC.
- 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 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_catalog is for browsing free metadata, get_record is for purchasing and retrieving a specific record. There is no overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix + noun pattern (get_catalog, get_record), making the naming predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server feels overly minimal for a marketplace that claims to cover many data verticals. A typical agent would expect additional tools for search, filtering, account management, or order history.
The surface is missing important operations like full-text search, ability to get record details before purchase, and tools for managing purchases or viewing history. The domain of a data marketplace is far from fully covered.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_catalogAInspect
Browse the OSF catalog (FREE). Returns record_ids, prices, data types, and
provenance URLs so an agent can choose what to purchase. Optionally filter by
source (e.g. 'NVD', 'CISA_KEV', 'EPSS', 'GHSA', 'CWE', 'MITRE_ATTACK', 'SEC_EDGAR') or data_type (substring, e.g.
'CVE', 'Exploited', 'EPSS', '8-K', 'sanctions').
OSF aggregates verifiable public and openly-licensed U.S. government and
scientific data across many verticals: security and vulnerabilities
(CVE/KEV/EPSS/CWE/ATT&CK), sanctions and compliance (OFAC/EU/UK lists), SEC
and corporate filings (EDGAR/13F/10-K/XBRL), economic and financial
(FRED/BLS/BEA/Census/Treasury/World Bank), legal and regulatory (Federal
Register/eCFR/Congress/court opinions), grants and procurement
(USAspending/SAM/FEC/Grants.gov), science and research
(OpenAlex/PubMed/arXiv/Crossref/clinical trials), geospatial and environmental
(NOAA/USGS/EPA/FEMA), and AI/ML metadata (model hubs), among others. Every
record carries a provenance URL pointing back to its authoritative primary
source. Call get_record with a record_id to purchase the full record (x402
USDC micropayment on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| data_type | No | ||
| record_key | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully discloses read-only nature (FREE), what is returned (record_ids, prices, data types, provenance URLs), optional filtering, and the overall scope of data sources. No contradictions.
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?
Description is front-loaded with purpose and key info, but includes a lengthy paragraph listing all data verticals that adds context but could be condensed. Overall adequate but not highly 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?
Given optional parameters, presence of output schema, and sibling tool, description is comprehensive: it explains free browsing vs paid purchase, filtering options, range of data sources, and provenance. Agent has enough to decide when and how to invoke.
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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains source and data_type with examples, but fails to describe limit, offset, and record_key. Only 2 of 5 parameters are covered, leaving significant 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?
Description clearly states the tool browses the OSF catalog for free, returns record_ids and other fields, and distinguishes it from the sibling get_record tool (which purchases records). The verb 'browse' and resource 'OSF catalog' are specific.
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 when to use: to browse the catalog for free. Also directs to use get_record for purchasing after finding a record_id. Provides clear context for choosing between the two tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_recordAInspect
Purchase and retrieve one verified OSF record by record_id (PAID, x402 USDC on Base). Returns the full record plus its provenance block linking back to the authoritative primary source (e.g. sec.gov, nvd.nist.gov, treasury.gov, congress.gov, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, noaa.gov).
OSF spans many verticals: security/vulnerabilities, sanctions/compliance, SEC
and corporate filings, economic and financial series, legal and regulatory,
grants and procurement, science and research, geospatial and environmental, and
AI/ML metadata. Browse get_catalog first (free) to find record_ids and prices.
Payment is handled automatically by x402-capable MCP clients via the standard
payment handshake.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool involves a purchase (payment) and returns the record with provenance. No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavioral traits without contradiction.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. The third sentence on OSF verticals, while informative, is slightly tangential but not excessive.
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?
Covers purpose, parameter source, return contents (record + provenance), and payment handling. Lacks error handling details but is largely complete for a simple retrieval 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 coverage is 0%, but description explains record_id comes from get_catalog and is used to identify the record, adding critical meaning beyond the schema's minimal label.
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 retrieves a specific OSF record by record_id, with payment. It distinguishes from sibling get_catalog (browsing) by specifying purchase and retrieval.
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 advises to use get_catalog first to find record_ids and prices, and mentions automatic payment via x402-capable MCP clients. Provides clear when-to-use context.
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!