Search 500+ wire-harness & cable-assembly manufacturers by country, industry, and capability.
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.
Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one finds alternative components, the other searches for manufacturers. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent 'find_[noun]' pattern, making the naming predictable and uniform.
Two tools is border-line thin for a directory service, especially since one tool is explicitly described as under construction and returns no matches. The count feels slightly low but not unreasonable for a narrow search-focused purpose.
The manufacturer search seems functional, but the alternative-parts tool is non-functional by design, leaving a major gap in the stated purpose. There are also no CRUD operations or listing capabilities, making the surface severely limited for a full 'atlas' service.
find_alternativeAInspectCross-reference a wire-harness component part number (connectors, terminals, seals, cable protection) against the XrefBase equivalence graph. Results are grouped by how strong the relationship is, and the groups are not interchangeable: verified_replacements are corroborated drop-in or manufacturer-superseded parts; functional_equivalents do the same job but need engineering review; same_series and variants are the same family in a different configuration and are NOT substitutes; mates_with is the counterpart connector the part plugs into, which is specifically not a substitute for it. Every claim carries a confidence level and, where one exists, a public source URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| part_number | Yes | Manufacturer part number to cross-reference. Punctuation and case are normalised, so '1-967616-1' and '19676161' both match. | |
| manufacturer | No | Optional original manufacturer name. Accepts known aliases ('TE', 'H+S'). Disambiguates when one MPN exists under several manufacturers. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains non-interchangeable groups, specifically that 'mates_with' is not a substitute, and mentions confidence levels and source URLs. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error conditions, but the lookup nature is clear.
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 paragraph that front-loads the main action and uses backticks for group names. It is dense but efficient; every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tightened by reducing some redundant phrasing around group explanations.
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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return categories, their meanings, and the attached confidence/source fields. This is sufficient for an agent to interpret results correctly and makes the tool's behavior well-rounded.
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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions part_number and manufacturer implicitly, while the schema's descriptions already cover normalization and aliases. No additional parameter context is provided.
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 cross-references wire-harness component part numbers against the XrefBase equivalence graph, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling find_manufacturer by focusing on equivalence relationships rather than manufacturer details.
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 gives clear context on how to interpret result groups and warns that groups are not interchangeable, which guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over the sibling find_manufacturer or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
find_manufacturerAInspectSearch the Harness Atlas directory of wire-harness and cable-assembly manufacturers. Filter by country, industry served, process capability, or name. Returns listed manufacturer profiles (location, website, industries, capabilities).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Partial company name to match. | |
| limit | No | ||
| country | No | HQ country, e.g. 'Germany', 'Poland', 'China'. | |
| industry | No | Industry the manufacturer serves. | |
| capability | No | Required process capability, e.g. 'hv_capable', 'ultrasonic_welding', 'ipc_whma_620'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'Returns listed manufacturer profiles (location, website, industries, capabilities)', which reveals the response shape and implies a read-only operation. It also mentions filtering behavior. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or cover error cases, the described behavior is sufficiently transparent for a search 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 two sentences: the first establishes the resource and action, the second elaborates on filters and return values. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.
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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core aspects: what it searches, what filters are available, and what is returned. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but the schema covers that. It also omits explicit discussion of the sibling tool for alternative paths, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 80%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain name (partial match), country, industry, and capability. The tool description merely lists 'country, industry served, process capability, or name' without adding new meaning. The 'limit' parameter is documented in the schema via default/max/min. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Search the Harness Atlas directory of wire-harness and cable-assembly manufacturers.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'find_alternative' by focusing on a directory search rather than alternative-finding. The scope is precise and actionable.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: searching the Harness Atlas directory with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with 'find_alternative', leaving a slight gap in exclusions or alternatives.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!