BetaFinds
Server Details
Publish and update your startup on BetaFinds from an AI agent — listings, changelog, releases.
- 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 4.1/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource (e.g., creating a startup vs. uploading an image vs. managing releases). There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_startup, upload_image, list_categories). The naming is predictable and uniform across the set.
With 10 tools, the server provides a comprehensive surface for startup management without being bloated. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers core startup lifecycle tasks (creation, updates, release management, image uploads, category listing). Missing delete operations and update listing, but the main workflows are supported.
Available Tools
10 toolscomplete_asset_uploadAIdempotentInspect
Confirm that the release file has been uploaded. Verifies the file's presence and size in storage and makes it available for download.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | File ID from request_asset_upload |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| downloadUrl | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds verification and state change (makes available) beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It could mention error behavior on verification failure or the output schema, but overall provides useful context.
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 wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and followed by the verification and effect. Every sentence 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 tool's simplicity (1 param, annotations, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, action, and effect. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or that the file must be uploaded first, but implied.
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 asset_id described as 'File ID from request_asset_upload'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full 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 that the tool confirms a release file upload, verifies presence and size, and makes it available for download. It uses specific verbs (confirm, verifies, makes available) and distinguishes from sibling tools like request_asset_upload that initiate the upload.
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 after an upload has been initiated, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like request_asset_upload. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_releaseAInspect
Create a release (version) of your startup. By default also publishes a RELEASE-type update with the notes text. After creation, upload files via request_asset_upload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | Release notes in Markdown | |
| version | Yes | Version, e.g. 1.4.0 | |
| announce | No | Whether to publish an update in the feed (default true) | |
| startup_slug | Yes | Startup slug |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| message | No | |
| version | No | |
| release_id | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the side effect of publishing a RELEASE-type update and the follow-up action of uploading files. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with a create operation. No contradictions. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 with no wasted words. The key action is front-loaded ('Create a release'). Every sentence provides unique information: creation action, default side effect, and next steps.
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 description covers the primary action, side effects, and post-creation steps. An output schema exists, so return value details are assumed handled. It could mention required parameters explicitly, but the schema covers that. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.
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 descriptions. The description adds value by linking 'notes text' to the notes parameter and clarifying the default behavior of the announce parameter ('By default also publishes...'). This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 'Create' and the resource 'release', specifying it is for a startup. It also reveals a side effect of publishing an update. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like publish_update or get_releases, though the purpose is clear.
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 sequencing hint ('After creation, upload files via request_asset_upload') and mentions that an update is published by default. It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like publish_update, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_startupAInspect
Create a new startup on BetaFinds (submitted for review). Upload the logo and screenshots first via upload_image (or POST https://betafinds.com/api/v1/images) and pass the returned URLs here. Set the category by slug — get the list via list_categories (a category name also works, case-insensitive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Product website URL | |
| logo | No | Logo URL from upload_image (optional) | |
| name | Yes | Product name | |
| tags | No | Tags (up to 6) | |
| tagline | Yes | One-line tagline (up to 160 characters) | |
| appStoreUrl | No | Ссылка на страницу в App Store (iOS) | |
| description | Yes | Full description (min 50 characters) | |
| screenshots | No | Screenshot URLs from upload_image (up to 5, optional) | |
| category_slug | No | Category slug (e.g. ai, saas, fintech) | |
| googlePlayUrl | No | Ссылка на страницу в Google Play (Android) | |
| testflightUrl | No | Ссылка на TestFlight (бета для iOS) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | No | |
| slug | No | |
| status | No | |
| message | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description clarifies that creation results in a 'submitted for review' state, not immediate activation. It also mentions the order of operations (upload images first). This adds behavioral context beyond annotations.
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 unnecessary words. The first sentence states the core purpose and the review status. The second provides essential usage instructions for images and category. 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?
With 11 parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools like update_startup and list_categories, the description covers prerequisites (image upload), parameter relationships (category slug vs name), and the review consequence. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter understanding by explaining that logo and screenshots URLs come from upload_image, and category can be slug or name (case-insensitive). It orients the user on how to fill optional parameters effectively.
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 opens with 'Create a new startup on BetaFinds (submitted for review)', clearly stating the verb 'create' and the resource 'startup'. It distinguishes from siblings like update_startup and upload_image by specifying the creation action and submission for review.
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 usage guidance: upload logo and screenshots first via upload_image, set category using slug via list_categories. It explains how to supply optional image URLs and category. No explicit 'when not to use', but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_releasesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List of a startup's published releases with files and download links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| startup_slug | Yes | Startup slug |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns files and download links, which is consistent and adds some value, but does not disclose further behavioral traits like pagination or authentication.
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, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without 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 read-only list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. Minor omission: no mention of ordering or pagination, but not critical.
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 the single parameter described as 'Startup slug'. The description reinforces that the parameter identifies the startup but adds minimal new meaning 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 states the verb 'list' and the resource 'published releases', and mentions what is included ('files and download links'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_release.
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 usage with a startup slug but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though context from sibling tools helps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_categoriesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List of available categories (slug and name) for create_startup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds only the specific fields (slug and name) but no additional behavioral context like rate limits or auth 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?
Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and context.
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 no-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context, though it could mention the output structure slightly more explicitly.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline of 3 applies; description does not need to add parameter details.
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 available categories with slug and name, and explicitly ties it to create_startup, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list startups or handle assets.
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 usage before create_startup but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_my_startupsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List of your startups on BetaFinds (slug, name, status). Updates can only be published for startups with APPROVED status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral nuance about needing APPROVED status for updates, which is beyond annotation scope.
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, front-loaded with purpose, 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?
Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and existence of output schema, the description is complete: covers purpose and a key constraint.
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?
No parameters, so schema fully covers them. Description doesn't need to add parameter info; baseline 4 applies.
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 of your startups' with specific fields (slug, name, status), distinguishing it from siblings like create_startup or update_startup.
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 context that updates require APPROVED status, guiding when to use this tool to check status before publishing updates. Does not explicitly state alternatives, but siblings are distinct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
publish_updateBInspect
Publish an update (an entry in the «What's new» feed) for your startup. Subscribers receive an email summary within ~10 minutes. body supports Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Text in Markdown (10–20000 characters) | |
| type | No | Type: RELEASE — new version, UPDATE — improvement, FIX — fix, NEWS — news. Defaults to NEWS. | |
| title | Yes | Update title (3–200 characters) | |
| version | No | Version, if applicable (e.g. 1.4.0) | |
| startup_slug | Yes | Startup slug (from list_my_startups) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | No | |
| message | No | |
| publishedAt | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by mentioning the email summary sent within ~10 minutes and that body supports Markdown. However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, permissions, or idempotency, leaving gaps for the agent.
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 with no fluff. The first sentence is front-loaded with the primary action. The second adds a key side effect. The third could be omitted since it repeats schema info, but it's minor.
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 5 parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose and a side effect but omits explanations for type and version parameters, and does not differentiate from sibling tools. It is adequate but not thorough.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only restates that body supports Markdown, which is already in the schema. No new parameter meaning is added.
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 publishes an update to the 'What's new' feed for a startup, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_release, which might also involve updates.
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, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_asset_uploadAInspect
Get a one-time link to upload a release file (Windows/Mac/Android/Linux, up to 1 GB). Then upload the file: curl -T ''. After uploading, call complete_asset_upload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | Yes | File size in bytes (exact) | |
| sha256 | No | File SHA-256 (hex, optional) | |
| filename | Yes | File name, e.g. MyApp-1.4.0.dmg | |
| platform | Yes | File platform | |
| release_id | Yes | Release ID from create_release |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| assetId | No | |
| uploadUrl | No | |
| downloadUrl | No | |
| instructions | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal, but description adds value by explaining the one-time link behavior, file size limit, and supported platforms. However, does not mention if the link expires or any 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?
Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with main purpose. Excellent 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?
Given the context (5 params, output schema exists, sibling tools listed), the description is quite complete. It explains the process and next steps. Minor omission: no mention of link expiration.
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 good descriptions for each parameter. Description does not add much beyond schema, but provides a filename example. Baseline 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 verb 'get' and the resource 'one-time link to upload a release file', and distinguishes from siblings like complete_asset_upload and upload_image.
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 step-by-step instructions: get link, upload with curl, then call complete_asset_upload. Clearly states when to use it and what to do after.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
update_startupAIdempotentInspect
Update an existing startup: app-store links, website, short/full description, tags, category. Pass only the fields you want to change; to clear a link, pass an empty string. See current values via list_my_startups. Moderation status is not affected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Product website URL | |
| tags | No | Tags (up to 6) | |
| tagline | No | One-line tagline (up to 160 characters) | |
| appStoreUrl | No | Ссылка на страницу в App Store (iOS) | |
| description | No | Full description (min 50 characters) | |
| startup_slug | Yes | Startup slug (from list_my_startups) | |
| category_slug | No | Category slug (see list_categories) | |
| googlePlayUrl | No | Ссылка на страницу в Google Play (Android) | |
| testflightUrl | No | Ссылка на TestFlight (бета для iOS) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | No | |
| slug | No | |
| status | No | |
| message | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that moderation status is unaffected and clarifies partial update behavior, which goes beyond annotations.
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 efficient sentences: first lists updated fields, second provides key usage semantics. 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?
Covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and references a source for current data. Output schema exists. Sibling tools are appropriately distinct.
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 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining partial updates, clearing links via empty strings, and sourcing the slug from list_my_startups.
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 updates an existing startup, enumerating specific fields. It distinguishes from create_startup, a sibling tool that creates new startups.
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 instructions for partial updates and clearing links, and references list_my_startups for current values. Does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
upload_imageAInspect
Upload an image (logo or screenshot) for create_startup. Pass the file content as base64 (data is base64 only, no data: prefix). Returns a url to pass into create_startup. Max 2 MB; formats: JPEG, PNG, WebP, GIF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | File content in base64 | |
| filename | No | File name (optional) | |
| mime_type | Yes | MIME type: image/png, image/jpeg, image/webp, image/gif |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | No | |
| path | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it confirms the tool writes (upload), returns a URL, and imposes constraints (max 2 MB, allowed formats). Annotations only provide hints, so the description carries the burden effectively.
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: two sentences covering purpose, usage, output, and constraints. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or fluff.
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 description covers all key aspects: input format, constraints, output relation to create_startup, and explicit format/size limits. Given the presence of an output schema, this is fully adequate 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that data should be base64 without a 'data:' prefix, and clarifies optionality of filename. This extra guidance improves usability beyond the schema alone.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: uploading an image (logo or screenshot) specifically for use with create_startup. This differentiates it from sibling tools like request_asset_upload or complete_asset_upload, providing a 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?
The description states when to use the tool (for images to be used with create_startup) and provides critical formatting instructions (base64 without data: prefix). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear given sibling names.
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!