pokemon
Server Details
Pokemon MCP — wraps PokéAPI (free, no auth required)
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- pipeworx-io/mcp-pokemon
- 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 3.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_pokemon, get_ability, get_evolution_chain), but there is overlap between ask_pipeworx and discover_tools, as both aim to help find or access information, which could cause confusion. The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) are clearly separate but form a distinct subset.
The naming is mixed: some tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_pokemon, get_ability, discover_tools), while others use single verbs (e.g., ask_pipeworx, forget, recall, remember). This inconsistency reduces predictability, though the names are still readable and not chaotic.
With 9 tools, the count is reasonable for a Pokémon server, covering core data retrieval and memory management. It is slightly over-scoped due to the inclusion of general-purpose tools like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools, but overall, each tool has a place in the set.
For Pokémon data retrieval, the tools cover key aspects: getting Pokémon details, abilities, evolution chains, and type information. However, there are minor gaps, such as missing tools for moves, items, or locations, which agents might need to work around. The memory tools add utility but are not core to the Pokémon domain.
Available Tools
9 toolsask_pipeworxAInspect
Ask a question in plain English and get an answer from the best available data source. Pipeworx picks the right tool, fills the arguments, and returns the result. No need to browse tools or learn schemas — just describe what you need. Examples: "What is the US trade deficit with China?", "Look up adverse events for ozempic", "Get Apple's latest 10-K filing".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | Your question or request in natural language |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool picks the right data source, fills arguments automatically, and returns results. However, it lacks details on limitations such as rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs, which would be helpful for a tool with such broad functionality.
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 and front-loaded, starting with the core functionality and following with benefits and examples. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the tool's value proposition and usage without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand.
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 complexity (natural language processing to select data sources) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits well, but could benefit from mentioning potential limitations or the types of data sources available to set clearer expectations.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'question' as a natural language string. The description adds value by emphasizing the plain English aspect and providing examples like 'Look up adverse events for ozempic', which clarifies the expected format and scope beyond the schema's basic description.
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: 'Ask a question in plain English and get an answer from the best available data source.' It specifies the verb ('ask') and resource ('answer from data source'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing natural language interaction without needing to browse tools or learn schemas. The examples further clarify its unique role.
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 states when to use this tool: for asking questions in plain English to get answers from data sources, without needing to browse tools or learn schemas. It provides clear alternatives by implication (e.g., not using other tools that require schema knowledge) and includes practical examples like 'What is the US trade deficit with China?' to illustrate appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
discover_toolsAInspect
Search the Pipeworx tool catalog by describing what you need. Returns the most relevant tools with names and descriptions. Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of tools to return (default 20, max 50) | |
| query | Yes | Natural language description of what you want to do (e.g., "analyze housing market trends", "look up FDA drug approvals", "find trade data between countries") |
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 discloses the tool's search behavior and return format ('Returns the most relevant tools with names and descriptions'), but lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements that would be helpful for a discovery 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does, the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text.
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 discovery tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good context about when to use it and what it returns. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about result format or limitations.
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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning natural language queries in the context, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 with specific verbs ('Search the Pipeworx tool catalog') and resources ('tool catalog'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing its discovery function rather than direct data retrieval like 'get_pokemon' or 'get_type'.
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 use this tool ('Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task'), including a clear condition (500+ tools) and alternative approach (using it as an initial discovery step).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
forgetCInspect
Delete a stored memory by key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key to delete |
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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether the deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded for a simple tool.
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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical behavioral details (e.g., permanence, error handling) and doesn't explain return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'key' documented as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as key format or examples. With high schema coverage, the 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a stored memory by key'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'recall' (which likely retrieves memories) or 'remember' (which likely stores memories), missing explicit sibling differentiation.
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 like 'recall' or 'remember', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing memory key) or exclusions. It's a bare statement of function without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_abilityBInspect
Look up a Pokémon ability (e.g., "static", "overgrow"). Returns effect description and all Pokémon that can have this ability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ability | Yes | Ability name (e.g., "overgrow", "blaze", "static") |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is returned but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 key information ('Get ability details') and specifies the returned data without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's output.
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 (one required parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output schema, so it doesn't explain return values, and with no annotations, it misses behavioral context. For a simple lookup tool, it's minimally viable but could benefit from more detail on usage or errors.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'ability' clearly documented as the ability name with examples. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ability details'), including what information is returned ('effect description and the list of Pokémon that can have this ability'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pokemon and get_type by focusing on abilities, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_evolution_chain.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_pokemon (which might include ability info) or get_evolution_chain. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_evolution_chainBInspect
Trace a full evolution line by chain ID. Returns each stage with evolution triggers, level requirements, and items needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Evolution chain ID (e.g., 1 for Bulbasaur line, 10 for Caterpie line) |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return data but does not cover critical aspects such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance, with no wasted 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains what the tool returns but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or usage context. For a straightforward read operation, this is minimally viable but could be improved with more contextual information.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid IDs or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.
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 action ('Get the full evolution chain') and resource ('by chain ID'), specifying what information is returned ('each species in the chain with its evolution trigger, minimum level, and evolution item'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_pokemon or get_ability, which likely retrieve different types of Pokémon data.
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 like get_pokemon or get_ability. It mentions what the tool does but lacks context on appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_pokemonBInspect
Get stats, types, abilities, height, weight, and sprites for a Pokémon. Lookup by name (e.g., "pikachu") or ID (e.g., "25").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Pokémon name (e.g., "pikachu") or numeric ID (e.g., "25") |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return data but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens with invalid names/IDs), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is purely functional without behavioral 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?
The description is perfectly concise and well-structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get Pokémon details by name or ID') followed by a comprehensive but efficient list of what's returned. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste.
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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic functionality and return data. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation and provide more behavioral context about error conditions or limitations.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by name or ID' but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter usage beyond what's already in the structured data.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Pokémon details'), listing exactly what information is returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ability, get_evolution_chain, and get_type by focusing on comprehensive Pokémon details rather than specific attributes.
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. While it implicitly suggests this is for retrieving general Pokémon details, there's no explicit mention of when to choose this over sibling tools like get_ability for ability-specific queries or get_type for type information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_typeAInspect
Check type effectiveness matchups and find Pokémon by type (e.g., "fire", "water"). Returns damage chart and up to 20 Pokémon.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Type name (e.g., "fire", "water", "electric") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns damage relations (double/half/no damage to and from) and limits results to 'the first 20 Pokémon of that type.' This provides important context about output format and result limitations that isn't available elsewhere.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides important behavioral details about what's returned and result limitations. No wasted words or redundant 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 tool with one parameter (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what information is returned (damage relations and Pokémon list) and includes the important limitation of returning only the first 20 Pokémon. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates reasonably well.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'type' already documented as 'Type name (e.g., "fire", "water", "electric").' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 with specific verbs ('Get type effectiveness information and Pokémon list') and resource ('for a given type'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ability, get_evolution_chain, and get_pokemon by focusing specifically on type data rather than abilities, evolution chains, or individual Pokémon.
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 context by specifying what the tool returns (damage relations and Pokémon list), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance is provided about when not to use it or what other tools might be better for related queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recallAInspect
Retrieve a previously stored memory by key, or list all stored memories (omit key). Use this to retrieve context you saved earlier in the session or in previous sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Memory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys) |
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 key behavioral traits: the tool can retrieve individual memories by key or list all memories, works across sessions, and accesses previously stored context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like memory size constraints or retrieval failures.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence explains the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.
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 moderate complexity (retrieval with optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the dual functionality and cross-session capability. However, it doesn't describe the return format (what a 'memory' looks like) or error conditions, leaving some gaps.
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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it explains the semantic difference between providing a key (retrieve specific memory) and omitting it (list all keys), which clarifies the optional parameter's behavior beyond the schema's technical documentation.
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 with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'list') and resources ('previously stored memory by key', 'all stored memories'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' (store) and 'forget' (delete) by focusing on retrieval operations.
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 use this tool: 'to retrieve context you saved earlier in the session or in previous sessions.' It also specifies when to omit the key parameter ('omit key to list all keys'), giving clear operational instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rememberAInspect
Store a key-value pair in your session memory. Use this to save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions last 24 hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference") | |
| value | Yes | Value to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes) |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the persistence difference between authenticated users ('persistent memory') and anonymous sessions ('last 24 hours'), and the cross-tool context capability ('across tool calls'). It doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or memory size limits, but covers the essential operational behavior.
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 perfectly concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose with examples, and the second sentence adds crucial behavioral context about persistence differences. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler content.
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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and key behavioral traits (persistence differences). The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but given the tool's relative simplicity, the description is reasonably 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'key-value pair' generically but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details for the 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('store a key-value pair') and resource ('in your session memory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'forget' and 'recall' by focusing on storage rather than retrieval or deletion. The examples of what to store ('intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls') provide concrete use cases.
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 this tool ('to save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls'), which helps differentiate it from siblings like 'get_pokemon' or 'discover_tools'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives (e.g., when to use 'recall' instead for retrieval).
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!