F
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceL1-aware grammar, style, translation & tone tools with 70 local rules. Zero API keys needed.
4
-
BCP 47 language tag shape
Server Details
BCP 47 language tag shape
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
- Repository
- sadri-dridi/named-mcp-utilities
- GitHub Stars
- 0
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
Scored across 11 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose—validating language tags, fetching URL metadata, checking timezones, etc. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool functions.
Naming Consistency3/5
Names mix hyphenated verb-noun forms (normalize-url, inspect-robots) with single-word nouns (citation, timezone) and an oddly formatted bcp47-ok. The pattern is not consistent, though readable.
Tool Count3/5
11 tools is a reasonable number for a general utility server, but the server is explicitly labeled as 'BCP 47 language tag shape,' and only one tool relates to that. The set feels like a grab bag rather than a focused collection.
Completeness2/5
The tools cover a scatter of unrelated domains (URLs, HTTP, timezones, JSON, robots), but the primary stated purpose (BCP47 language tags) has only a single tool, leaving obvious gaps. There is no coherent lifecycle or domain coverage.
Available Tools
29 toolsagent-tool-indexDInspect
Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid). Returns CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops. Task text discarded.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description and parameter details mention that inputs are 'discarded' and that there is 'no disk access,' which provides some transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the tool makes network calls, requires authentication, or has rate limits, and the relationship between finding a gateway and discarding inputs is left unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and avoids unnecessary detail, but the three sentences are disjointed and leave key questions unanswered. It is concise without being clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no examples, and no explanation of how the gateway is selected or what 'connection methods' look like, the description is critically incomplete. The tool cannot be used reliably based solely on the provided information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although all parameters have descriptions, each description only states that the value is discarded after a check, providing no actual semantic meaning or usage guidance. The parameter names hint at domains (url, city, query), but the descriptions actively undermine understanding by saying the values are not used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a general purpose ('Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway') and lists example tasks, but it does not explain how the tool is actually invoked or how the task is specified. It fails to clearly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like weather-hint or web-fetch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no prerequisites, no selection criteria, and no indication of what inputs are expected or how the task text is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
bcp47-okDInspect
BCP 47 language tag shape
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it mentions no side effects, return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent completely uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Although extremely short, the description is not concise in a useful way because it omits essential information and does not structure any actionable guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is far from complete for an agent to use the tool correctly; it fails to explain the tool's purpose or how the provided parameters are used, especially given the mismatch with the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema parameters (url, host, json, zone) are unrelated to BCP 47 and their generic descriptions do not clarify how they relate to language tag validation; the description adds no meaning to these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a noun phrase ('BCP 47 language tag shape') lacking a verb; it does not state what the tool actually does, such as 'validates a BCP 47 language tag'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate-json or timezone; the description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
browser-url-okInspect
Check whether a URL can be opened. No browser is launched.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
calc-evalInspect
Evaluate a+b style arithmetic. Expression discarded.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
citationDInspect
Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that page content is not stored, which is a transparency note, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether the URL is fetched, any side effects, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, but the inclusion of 'Page content is not stored' adds a transparency note that, while useful, contributes to the mismatch with the parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema or description of the return format, and error cases or limitations are not addressed; the description is insufficient for fully understanding the tool's contract.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain how parameters like host, json, and zone relate to the stated purpose; it relies entirely on the brief schema descriptions, which are ambiguous in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action (return host, scheme, HTTP status) but the parameters (url, host, json, zone) do not align with that purpose, creating confusion about the tool's actual function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog; the description offers no differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compatibilityCInspect
Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
C2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The statement 'No identifiers are retained' gives a privacy guarantee but does not disclose the core behavior—whether the tool performs any side effects, reads only, or how classification is determined. The absence of annotations makes this gap significant.
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?
The description is brief and free of redundancy, consisting of two clear sentences. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information provided, though the content itself is vague.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema or description of the return format, so the agent cannot anticipate what the tool will produce. Given the ambiguous purpose, the lack of output details leaves the tool incompletely specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema descriptions cover all four parameters, they are generic and appear copied from other tools (e.g., 'normalize or cite', 'validate; discarded'), not explaining how they relate to classification. The tool description does not clarify their role in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what 'classified' means or what resource is being acted upon. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like normalize-url or validate-json, which have clear purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, contexts, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
domain-shapeDInspect
Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral details such as return format, error handling, side effects, or whether it is read-only. With no annotations, the agent has no idea what to expect after invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence and lacks structure. It is concise but not informative, and the phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is ambiguous. The layout of parameters is standard but the description itself is poorly organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the multiple parameters and the presence of sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the relationship between parameters, expected input formats, or which sibling tools to use as alternatives. The tool appears overloaded without sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Each parameter has a brief description (url, host, json, zone), but these descriptions do not explain how they relate to the stated purpose of splitting a hostname. The semantics are inconsistent and lack context for how the parameters are supposed to be used together or separately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it splits a hostname into labels, but the parameters include url, json, zone, which do not align with that purpose. It is unclear which parameter is the primary input or whether the tool handles multiple unrelated tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone. No explicit conditions or examples are provided to distinguish appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetch-statusInspect
HEAD a public URL and return status only.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
figma-url-shapeInspect
Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
file-path-okInspect
Check whether a path looks safe. No disk access.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
geo-hintInspect
Latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
github-repo-shapeInspect
Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
hn-front-countInspect
Count current Hacker News front-page stories. Titles discarded.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
iana-zonesDInspect
Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided and the description does not disclose side effects, read-only status, authentication requirements, or error behavior. The tool's behavior is entirely opaque.
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 extremely brief and contains no redundant information. It is a single, compact sentence that is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too minimal to provide a complete picture. It lacks information about what the tool outputs, how the parameters are used, and what distinguishes it from closely related sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema includes descriptions for each parameter, they are unrelated to the stated purpose of iana-zones (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate'). This makes the parameters confusing rather than informative, so the descriptions do not add meaningful context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is a noun phrase and does not clearly state an action such as 'returns' or 'lists'. It identifies a resource but leaves the tool's exact function ambiguous, especially given the mismatched input parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'timezone' or 'utc-time'. The description does not explain how iana-zones fits into a workflow or when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
inspect-robotsCInspect
Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (fetch) and the result (group counts), but does not explain what 'group counts' means, whether the fetch is synchronous, error handling, rate limits, or any side effects. Moreover, the parameter schema suggests behaviors (normalization, validation, timezone checks) that are completely unrelated to fetching a robots.txt, so the description fails to clarify the actual behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is misleading because the parameters do not support the stated behavior, and it does not mention the parameter mismatch. The brevity is not a virtue when it omits crucial clarification about the tool's actual inputs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and four parameters that appear unrelated to the description, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent has no idea how to supply the parameters to fetch a robots.txt, what a 'group count' is, or what the return format looks like. The description fails to bridge the gap between the stated purpose and the actual interface, making the tool effectively unusable without additional investigation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description says nothing about any of the four parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') describe tasks that are not related to fetching a robots.txt, leaving the agent unable to map the parameters to the stated purpose. The description should have explained how url, host, json, and zone relate to robots.txt inspection, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.' This is specific and differentiates it from siblings, which all appear to handle other tasks like normalization or validation. However, the parameter names and their schema descriptions (URL normalization, JSON validation, timezone) do not align with this stated purpose, creating confusion about what the tool actually does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or conditions for selection. Given the sibling set (normalize-url, validate-json, timezone, etc.), an agent would have no way to know this tool is for robots.txt inspection rather than those other tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
jira-key-shapeInspect
Check a Jira issue key shape. Key discarded.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
lib-docs-hintInspect
HTTP status for a public library docs URL. Body discarded.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
memory-key-countInspect
Count keys in a JSON object. Values discarded.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
normalize-urlCInspect
Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
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 that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral details: the return format (separate fields vs. combined string), handling of the other schema parameters (host, json, zone), and any edge cases (e.g., invalid URLs, non-HTTPS). The description is only partially transparent.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes an important behavioral detail. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a second sentence to cover the other parameters or return format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains only the URL handling but does not address the json, host, or zone parameters, nor does it describe the output shape. An agent cannot fully understand how to call this tool correctly for all possible inputs, making the definition inadequate for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it implies the 'url' parameter is the primary input, but it does not clarify the roles of 'host', 'json', or 'zone', which appear unrelated to URL normalization. The schema already describes each parameter, so the description provides little extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and specifies that query and fragment are dropped. It is specific and actionable, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like citation or domain-shape, which might also handle URL components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent to infer when normalization is appropriate compared to sibling tools that might be more specialized.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
playwright-url-okInspect
Check whether a URL can be opened. No browser is launched.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
search-query-lenInspect
Count characters in a search query. Query discarded.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
status-catalogDInspect
Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5
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, but it reveals nothing about side effects, return values, or how inputs are processed. The schema hints at normalization/validation/discarding, yet the description is silent on behavior, so an agent cannot anticipate the tool's actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks any structure or front-loaded information that would clarify the tool's operation or distinguish it from siblings, making the brevity counterproductive rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain what the tool does with the inputs, what results to expect, or how it relates to HTTP status codes, leaving an agent with virtually no contextual information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate') suggest functionality unrelated to HTTP status codes. The tool description adds no explanatory value for these parameters and instead conflicts with the schema's apparent intent, failing to help an agent map inputs to the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes' states what the tool contains but not what it does with the provided parameters (url, host, json, zone). There is no clear verb-resource relationship that connects these inputs to the stated purpose, making the tool's actual function ambiguous and inconsistent with its schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving an agent without any basis to select this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
think-stepsInspect
Return a three-step thinking template. Prompt discarded.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
timezoneBInspect
Current time in a named IANA timezone.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Current time', omitting details like return format, error handling for invalid zones, whether it makes network requests, or if it is read-only. The presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json) is unexplained, which could confuse agents.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. It fails to specify what the tool returns (format, structure), the relevance of the url, host, and json parameters, or any error behavior. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect invocation or misunderstanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters have descriptions. The description adds marginal value by implying that the zone parameter is the key input, but it does not clarify the purpose of url, host, or json in the context of a timezone tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters.
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's purpose: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. It distinguishes itself from siblings like utc-time (which presumably gives UTC time) and iana-zones (which lists zones), making it easy to select for timezone-specific queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention utc-time or iana-zones, nor does it specify contexts where this tool is preferred. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
utc-timeCInspect
Current UTC timestamp.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the basic result but says nothing about how the four declared parameters (url, host, json, zone) are handled, whether they are ignored, or what output format is returned.
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 a single, front-loaded phrase with no redundant words or filler. It is as concise as possible for the basic purpose it states.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-phrase description is not complete enough for an agent to know whether parameters are accepted or ignored or what the response will look like. It states the core result but leaves important contextual details unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema descriptions cover all four parameters, so the baseline is met even though the tool description adds no parameter-level detail. However, the schema parameter descriptions seem mismatched with the utc-time purpose, and the description does not clarify their role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides the current UTC timestamp, which is enough to infer its primary purpose. It is terse and uses a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb, but it is not ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as timezone or iana-zones. The description only states what it returns and does not mention any alternatives or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate-jsonCInspect
Check whether a body is valid JSON. The body is discarded.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
TDQS
C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only says 'the body is discarded', which hints at side effects but does not clarify whether the tool mutates state, requires permissions, or has side effects beyond validation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but too vague to be useful. It lacks essential details that could be included without adding length, such as what constitutes a 'body' and what the return value represents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the sibling tools (normalize-url, status-catalog, etc.), this tool's role is unclear. The description does not explain how it fits into a broader workflow or why the additional parameters are present, leaving the context incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter descriptions in the schema are inconsistent with the tool's purpose (e.g., url is described as 'to normalize or cite', host as 'public hostname', zone as 'IANA timezone name'), and the tool description does not explain how these parameters relate to the validation task. Only the 'json' parameter aligns with the stated purpose, but its meaning is still ambiguous in context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool checks whether a body is valid JSON, but 'body' is ambiguous and the relationship to the parameters (url, host, zone) is unclear. It does not specify the input format or expected output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention scenarios where validation is appropriate or note that other tools might handle related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
weather-hintInspect
Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
web-fetchInspect
HTTP status and content type for a public URL. Body discarded.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
wiki-title-okInspect
Check whether a Wikipedia title exists. Title discarded after the call.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | Git ref name; discarded after the shape check | |
| url | No | HTTPS URL to normalize or cite | |
| city | No | City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call | |
| feed | No | Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded | |
| host | No | Public hostname | |
| json | No | JSON text to validate; discarded after the check | |
| path | No | File path to check; no disk access | |
| zone | No | IANA timezone name | |
| query | No | Search text; discarded after the length check |
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
- Added
agent-tool-index
28 tool updates
- Changed
bcp47-ok5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{ + "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{ + "description": "File path to check; no disk access", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check", + "type": "string" +}
- Added
browser-url-ok - Added
calc-eval - Changed
citation5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{ + "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{ + "description": "File path to check; no disk access", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check", + "type": "string" +}
- Changed
compatibility5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{ + "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{ + "description": "File path to check; no disk access", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check", + "type": "string" +}
- Changed
domain-shape5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{ + "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{ + "description": "File path to check; no disk access", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check", + "type": "string" +}
- Added
fetch-status - Added
figma-url-shape - Added
file-path-ok - Added
geo-hint - Added
github-repo-shape - Added
hn-front-count - Changed
iana-zones5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{ + "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{ + "description": "File path to check; no disk access", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check", + "type": "string" +}
- Changed
inspect-robots5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{ + "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{ + "description": "File path to check; no disk access", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check", + "type": "string" +}
- Added
jira-key-shape - Added
lib-docs-hint - Added
memory-key-count - Changed
normalize-url5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{ + "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{ + "description": "File path to check; no disk access", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check", + "type": "string" +}
- Added
playwright-url-ok - Added
search-query-len - Changed
status-catalog5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{ + "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{ + "description": "File path to check; no disk access", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check", + "type": "string" +}
- Added
think-steps - Changed
timezone5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{ + "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{ + "description": "File path to check; no disk access", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check", + "type": "string" +}
- Changed
utc-time5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{ + "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{ + "description": "File path to check; no disk access", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check", + "type": "string" +}
- Changed
validate-json5 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{ + "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{ + "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{ + "description": "File path to check; no disk access", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{ + "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check", + "type": "string" +} - added
Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{ + "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check", + "type": "string" +}
- Added
weather-hint - Added
web-fetch - Added
wiki-title-ok
11 tool updates
- First observed
bcp47-ok - First observed
citation - First observed
compatibility - First observed
domain-shape - First observed
iana-zones - First observed
inspect-robots - First observed
normalize-url - First observed
status-catalog - First observed
timezone - First observed
utc-time - First observed
validate-json
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, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.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
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceBareun (바른) is a Korean natural-language engine. This MCP server lets any MCP-compatible client hand Korean text to a dedicated Korean engine instead of guessing: analyze_syntax (morphological analysis with 47 POS tags and beta homograph sense disambiguation), analyze_syntax_raw (raw model output), tokenize, correct_grammar (spelling and spacing correction), and list_pos_tags. Hosted at https://apMIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceEnables Indic-language transliteration and normalization of Indian names and addresses using Wikidata, Aksharamukha, and OpenStreetMap.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server providing a local learning graph for the Korean vocational high school curriculum (2022 revised), including 8,425 achievement standards, topics, and 10 tools for searching standards, topics, prerequisites, and learning roadmaps.2161MIT