MIT
RoloCache
Server Details
Independent, trusted, and verified advisories and routing for agentic workflows on the web.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
4 toolsget_catalog_infoAInspect
Returns live metadata about the RoloCache catalog: how many vendors are indexed, the complete list of valid protocol names for the protocol filter, the valid values for has_agent_interface, and all tags currently in use. Call this first if you are unsure what filter values are valid, or to get a sense of catalog coverage before searching.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the returned metadata and implies a read-only, informational operation. Could mention if the data is cached or any side effects, but overall transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then provides specific examples and usage guidance. Excellent structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and when to use it. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains, which is beyond the schema. Baseline 4 for 0 params, but the extra context earns a 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns live metadata about the RoloCache catalog, listing specific items (vendors count, protocol names, has_agent_interface values, tags). It distinguishes from siblings by advising to call this first when unsure of filter values or to get coverage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells the agent to call this tool first when unsure of valid filter values or to understand catalog coverage before searching. While it doesn't specify when not to use it, the guidance is clear and sufficient for most cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_vendorAInspect
Fetch the full AgentRouting record for a specific vendor, wrapped in a feedback request envelope.
vendor_id is the slug form used throughout the catalog, e.g. "booking-com", "delta", "navan". Get valid vendor_ids from lookup_vendors() first.
The response has two top-level fields:
data: the complete AgentRouting record with all protocol entries
outpost_dispatch: instructions for filing a field report after interacting with this vendor, including a pre-filled field_report_template ready to pass to report_to_outpost() or POST to the fallback_url
If an AgentContext record exists for this vendor, data will also contain a context_advisory field with an advisory_url. Fetch that URL before completing any transaction - it contains verified discrepancies and human handoff guidance based on independent research.
In data.protocols, each entry has a status: confirmed_present - checked and found, with endpoints/auth/notes where present not_found - checked and nothing found (not a failure, just absence of evidence) unable_to_verify - check was structurally blocked (e.g. requires live browser) confirmed_absent - vendor-side evidence explicitly confirms non-support
After completing your task, close the loop by calling report_to_outpost with the field_report_template from outpost_dispatch.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vendor_id | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, description discloses response structure (data, outpost_dispatch, context_advisory), protocol status meanings, and advisory URL fetching requirement. Provides comprehensive behavioral expectations without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is front-loaded with purpose and parameter explanation, then structured into response fields and workflow. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value; could be marginally tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, description still fully explains all response fields (data, outpost_dispatch, context_advisory, protocols with statuses) and workflow context (close loop with report_to_outpost). Complete for a single-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema coverage at 0%, description fully compensates by explaining vendor_id as slug form, giving examples ('booking-com', 'delta', 'navan'), and instructing to get valid IDs from lookup_vendors. Adds significant value beyond raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
First sentence clearly states action and resource: 'Fetch the full AgentRouting record for a specific vendor, wrapped in a feedback request envelope.' Distinguishes from siblings by referencing lookup_vendors for ID retrieval and report_to_outpost for post-task closing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells agent to get vendor_id from lookup_vendors() first, and to close the loop with report_to_outpost after task completion. Provides clear context for when to use, though does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup_vendorsAInspect
Search the RoloCache catalog and return matching vendors.
All three parameters are optional and combinable. With no parameters, returns all indexed vendors.
query: Searches vendor names, tags, and confirmed protocol names all at once. Examples: "hotel", "car rental", "corporate travel", "MCP". Compound phrases work - "car rental" correctly matches vendors tagged "car-rental".
protocol: Exact match against confirmed protocol names. Only returns vendors where that protocol has status confirmed_present. Valid values: A2A, ACP, AP2, MCP, MPP, NLWeb, UCP, WebMCP, x402, openai_apps_sdk, proprietary, self_declared_discovery. An unrecognized value returns empty results, not an error.
has_agent_interface: Exact match against "true", "false", or "partial". "partial" means some agent-callable surfaces exist but no single self-serve path covers end-to-end workflows.
Results only include vendors with real, current scan data. Each result contains vendor_id, vendor_domain, has_agent_interface, confirmed_protocols, tags, and record_url. Call get_vendor() with the vendor_id to get the full routing record including endpoints, auth, and per-protocol notes.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| protocol | No | ||
| has_agent_interface | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: search semantics, protocol exact match, has_agent_interface values, result inclusion criteria, and suggested follow-up via get_vendor().
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured: one-sentence purpose, then parameter details with examples. No fluff, every sentence is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive for a search tool: lists result fields and suggests follow-up. Could mention pagination or limits, but not necessary given the context. Output schema exists but not shown; description covers output sufficiently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description provides detailed semantics for each parameter: query examples, protocol valid values and behavior, has_agent_interface meaning of 'partial'. Greatly enriches the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Starts with clear verb+resource: 'Search the RoloCache catalog and return matching vendors.' Distinguishes from siblings like get_vendor which retrieves a single record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains all parameters are optional and combinable, including the no-parameter case returning all vendors. Does not explicitly contrast with siblings but context signals make the distinction clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
report_to_outpostAInspect
File a field report after interacting with a vendor using RoloCache routing data. Your observation is mission-critical signal - real-world outcomes from agents in the field are the highest-quality verification data RoloCache has, and every report directly improves the record for the next agent that queries it.
response_id and vendor_id come pre-filled in the field_report_template from get_vendor() - copy them directly.
protocol_attempted: which protocol from data.protocols you actually used.
endpoint_live: was the interface reachable, independent of task outcome. workflow_completed: did your actual task succeed end to end. friction_encountered: did anything go wrong or require extra steps.
If friction_encountered is true, the three friction detail fields become meaningful - fill them in: required_retry: did you have to retry before succeeding. required_human_handoff: did the task ultimately require a human. behavior_diverged_from_record: did the interface behave differently than the RoloCache record described.
notes is optional free text - use it for anything the structured fields don't capture. Treated as untrusted input on receipt.
If not using MCP, POST the field_report_template as JSON to https://www.rolocache.com/agent-tools/v1/field-report instead.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| vendor_id | Yes | ||
| response_id | Yes | ||
| endpoint_live | Yes | ||
| required_retry | No | ||
| protocol_attempted | Yes | ||
| workflow_completed | Yes | ||
| friction_encountered | Yes | ||
| required_human_handoff | No | ||
| behavior_diverged_from_record | No |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully discloses behavior. It explains that notes are untrusted, that friction fields become meaningful conditionally, and that reports improve the record. It does not mention side effects beyond that, but the tool is a benign report submission, so this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately long but well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence adds value: purpose, importance, parameter details, conditional logic, and alternative usage. It is front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers nearly all aspects: purpose, parameters, usage instructions, and alternative. It does not describe the output schema or the response structure post-submission, but given the tool is a one-way report, the description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: response_id and vendor_id come from get_vendor(), protocol_attempted is the protocol used, booleans are defined, friction details are conditional, and notes is optional and untrusted. This adds full meaning beyond field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'File a field report after interacting with a vendor using RoloCache routing data.' It clearly identifies the tool's action and resource. Sibling tools like get_vendor and lookup_vendors are query-oriented, making this distinct as a write operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it should be used after interacting with a vendor and explains that response_id and vendor_id come from get_vendor(). It also includes an alternative HTTP endpoint. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Related MCP Connectors
Trust infrastructure for AI agents: read a verifiable Trust Rating, claim an identity, earn a badge.
Trust infrastructure for AI agents. Portable reputation (JTS 0-5), agent discovery, vouching.
Verified, sourced, real-time intelligence layer for AI agents.
Verification and routing for autonomous agents: crawler ID, email, web capture, data routing.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceMachine-readable merchant verification infrastructure for AI shopping agents and agentic commerce systems.13MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to check trustworthiness before recommending URLs, products, or organizations, with fail-closed pass/fail verdicts and attested-only recommendations.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceThe trust and settlement layer for AI agents: discover the safest agent for a job, vet a counterparty before delegating, pay safely via escrow, and carry portable Guild-signed reputation. Attack-resistant (EigenTrust + collusion detection), W3C did:key + Verifiable Credentials, MCP + HTTP.1Apache 2.0
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct role: get_catalog_info provides metadata, lookup_vendors searches vendors, get_vendor retrieves full records, and report_to_outpost submits feedback. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: get_catalog_info, get_vendor, lookup_vendors, report_to_outpost.
Tool Count4/5
Four tools cover the core workflow of exploring, searching, retrieving details, and reporting. Slightly on the low side but well-scoped for a catalog/feedback system.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers discovery, search, detail retrieval, and feedback. Missing update/create capabilities, but those appear out of scope for this read-oriented catalog.