lorem
Server Details
Lorem MCP — wraps loripsum.net (free, no auth)
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- pipeworx-io/mcp-lorem
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have overlapping purposes—both generate lorem ipsum text—with unclear boundaries. 'generate_paragraphs' strips HTML and outputs plain text, while 'generate_with_options' includes HTML formatting options, but the descriptions don't clearly differentiate when to use one over the other, leading to potential misselection.
The tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern ('generate_paragraphs', 'generate_with_options'), which is predictable and readable. There are no deviations in style, making the naming convention clear and coherent.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin and under-scoped for a lorem ipsum generator, which could reasonably include more options like word count control, language variations, or different text formats. This limited set may not cover common use cases effectively.
The tool surface has significant gaps for a lorem ipsum domain. It lacks basic operations such as generating a specific number of words or sentences, providing different text styles (e.g., classic vs. modern), or offering non-HTML formatted outputs beyond plain paragraphs, which are common needs in placeholder text generation.
Available Tools
2 toolsgenerate_paragraphsAInspect
Generate lorem ipsum placeholder text as plain paragraphs. Strips all HTML tags from the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of paragraphs to generate (1–10) | |
| length | Yes | Length of each paragraph: short, medium, long, or verylong |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool strips HTML tags from responses, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond basic generation. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or other operational aspects.
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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and a key behavioral detail (stripping HTML), with no wasted words or 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's low complexity (simple text generation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete by specifying the output format and content type. However, it could benefit from more context on when to use versus the sibling tool or handling edge cases.
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 schema fully documents the two parameters (count and length). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the semantic impact of length options or count ranges, meeting the baseline for high 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 the specific action ('generate lorem ipsum placeholder text as plain paragraphs') and resource ('placeholder text'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'generate_with_options' by specifying the output format ('plain paragraphs') and content type ('lorem ipsum').
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 for generating placeholder text with plain paragraphs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'generate_with_options' or provide any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the context somewhat vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate_with_optionsCInspect
Generate lorem ipsum HTML with optional headers, code blocks, unordered lists, and ordered lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | Include code blocks | |
| count | Yes | Number of paragraphs to generate (1–10) | |
| length | Yes | Length of each paragraph | |
| headers | No | Include random headers (h1–h6) | |
| ordered_lists | No | Include ordered (numbered) lists | |
| unordered_lists | No | Include unordered (bullet) lists |
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 states the tool generates HTML with optional elements but lacks behavioral details: no information on output format (e.g., HTML string), error handling, rate limits, or side effects. For a generation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Generate lorem ipsum HTML') and lists optional features without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's functionality, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and generation functionality. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., HTML string), how optional elements are integrated, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool of this complexity, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing optional elements (headers, code blocks, unordered lists, ordered lists), which correspond to some boolean parameters. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context, meeting the baseline for high 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 the tool's purpose: 'Generate lorem ipsum HTML' with specific optional elements (headers, code blocks, unordered lists, ordered lists). It distinguishes from the sibling 'generate_paragraphs' by mentioning these HTML formatting options, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The verb 'generate' and resource 'lorem ipsum HTML' 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional features but doesn't explain when to choose this over 'generate_paragraphs' or other text generation tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection.
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!