HSL tuple shape
Scored across 11 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as timezone lookup vs URL normalization. However, 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both deal with URLs and could be confused without careful reading, and 'hsl-ok' is ambiguous. Overall, the boundaries are mostly clear.
Tool names mix dash-separated nouns (e.g., 'status-catalog', 'utc-time') with verb-noun patterns (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json') and single-word names (e.g., 'citation', 'timezone'). There is no consistent convention, making it harder to predict tool names.
11 tools is a reasonable number for a utility server, not too sparse or overwhelming. Each tool has a specific function, though the collection feels somewhat arbitrary rather than tightly scoped.
The set covers a hodgepodge of unrelated utilities (URLs, timezones, JSON, robots.txt) but lacks a clear domain. Obvious gaps exist, such as no HTTP header inspection, no DNS lookup, or no general web page fetching, making the surface feel incomplete for any single purpose.
Find a public pay-per-call tool gateway (Monid). Returns CLI setup, how-it-works, skill file, and remote MCP hops. Task text discarded.
| 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 |
Check whether a URL can be opened. No browser is launched.
| 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 |
Evaluate a+b style arithmetic. Expression discarded.
| 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 |
Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. Page content is not stored.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds one behavioral trait: 'Page content is not stored,' which is useful privacy context. However, it omits whether network requests are made, error behavior, and what happens with the other parameters. For a tool that likely performs network I/O, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, efficient, and front-loads the core function. The extra note about not storing content is relevant and concise. No wasted words, though it could benefit from a sentence about parameter use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a crowded sibling set, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain how the parameters interact, when to invoke it, or what the response looks like. An agent would struggle to call this correctly beyond the obvious URL case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't clarify how url, host, json, and zone relate to the stated purpose. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load, but the description adds little extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear primary function: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It identifies a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like normalize-url or status-catalog, and the presence of unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) muddies the intended scope, making the purpose less crisp.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions sibling tools nor provides conditions for selection. The description implies it's for citing a URL, but does not exclude normalize-url or status-catalog, leaving an agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show how this request is classified. No identifiers are retained.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only behavioral disclosure is 'No identifiers are retained,' which gives some privacy-relevant information. However, with no annotations provided, the description still fails to state whether the operation is read-only, what data is processed, or what side effects might occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and direct, with no redundant wording or filler. It opens with the main action and then adds a privacy note, which is an efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too minimal for a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema. It does not explain how the parameters are used, what classification result is returned, or what makes an input compatible, leaving critical context missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with definitions like 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate.' The tool description adds no additional context about how these parameters relate to 'classification' or 'compatibility,' so it does not improve on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Show how this request is classified' but never defines what 'classified' means, what kind of request is involved, or what output is produced. It does not clearly state the tool's core operation or resource, and the name 'compatibility' is not reflected in the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling tool. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to guess from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Split a hostname into labels without WHOIS or ownership data.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any side effects, error behavior, or what 'without WHOIS or data' implies. The description is too minimal to understand expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The main description is short but the inclusion of irrelevant and confusing parameter descriptions adds noise. The 'without WHOIS or data' phrase is unclear and detracts from conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and does not explain what the split result looks like. The mismatched parameters leave significant gaps in understanding the tool's actual functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter descriptions are clearly mismatched: 'url', 'json', and 'zone' have descriptions that belong to other tools, while 'host' is only vaguely 'Public hostname'. This severely misleads an agent about what inputs are actually relevant.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Split a hostname into labels') but the phrase 'without WHOIS or data' is vague and likely a typo. The core purpose is discernible but not fully clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like normalize-url or validate-json. The description does not mention any context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HEAD a public URL and return status only.
| 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 |
Parse a Figma file URL. Path discarded.
| 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 |
Check whether a path looks safe. No disk access.
| 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 |
Latitude and longitude for a place via Open-Meteo.
| 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 |
Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.
| 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 |
Count current Hacker News front-page stories. Titles discarded.
| 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 |
HSL tuple shape
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral detail. An agent cannot infer whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, what errors may arise, or what the tool returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and contains no filler, but brevity is not useful when the remaining phrase is cryptic. It is front-loaded only in the sense that there is nothing else, and it does not communicate the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply essential context on its own. It does not explain what 'HSL tuple shape' means, what inputs are expected semantically, or what kind of result the agent should anticipate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description itself adds no parameter explanation, but the input schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters: url, host, json, and zone. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'HSL tuple shape' lacks a verb and does not state what the tool does. The acronym HSL is undefined, and even combined with the tool name hsl-ok, an agent cannot determine whether this validates, converts, or checks something.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus siblings such as normalize-url, validate-json, timezone, or citation. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or alternative selection hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Common IANA timezone names for clock calls.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), and the description does not disclose side effects, safety, or error behavior. The tool's behavior is completely opaque, especially given the mismatch between the description and schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but it is not informative or well-structured. It lacks a clear action and fails to tie the schema to the purpose, making the brief text more confusing than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete given the complexity of the schema mismatch and lack of output schema. It does not provide enough context for the agent to correctly invoke the tool, and the unrelated parameters are not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema lists parameters (url, host, json, zone) with generic descriptions, but the tool description implies a focus on timezone names. The parameters 'url', 'host', and 'json' have no clear relation to the stated purpose, and the description does not explain how they should be used, leaving the agent without semantic understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Common IANA timezone names for clock calls' is vague and does not specify the exact action (e.g., list, lookup, validate). It also does not clarify what 'clock calls' means, and the schema parameters (url, host, json) are unrelated to timezone names, further obscuring the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. No annotations are present to compensate, leaving the agent without information about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The main description is concise, but the parameter descriptions are verbose and nonsensical, undermining the overall structure. The mismatch between purpose and parameter documentation makes the definition poorly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks essential context such as what 'group counts' means, expected output format, or how parameters like 'host' and 'zone' relate to robots.txt. The definition is incomplete for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameter descriptions are mismatched and misleading. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' which is irrelevant to robots.txt inspection. No parameter description aligns with the tool's actual function, leaving the agent unable to correctly populate inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a public robots.txt and returns group counts, which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json based on the primary action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where inspecting robots.txt is appropriate or where other tools should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check a Jira issue key shape. Key discarded.
| 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 |
HTTP status for a public library docs URL. Body discarded.
| 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 |
Count keys in a JSON object. Values discarded.
| 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 |
Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the behavioral detail that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or any other behavior beyond the basic operation. No annotations are present to supplement this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous information. It is well-structured and directly states the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete because the input schema includes parameters that are unrelated to the described functionality. The description does not explain why 'json', 'zone', and 'host' are present, leaving the agent with a contradictory tool definition. This is a critical gap that would cause confusion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, and it does not reconcile the mismatched parameters (e.g., 'json' and 'zone') with the stated URL-normalization purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment. However, the input schema includes parameters like 'json' and 'zone' that bear no relation to URL normalization, creating ambiguity about the actual purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., validate-json, timezone). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether a URL can be opened. No browser is launched.
| 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 |
Count characters in a search query. Query discarded.
| 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 |
Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.
| 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 |
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, but it only states 'Short catalog of common HTTP status codes.' It does not disclose whether the tool makes network requests, mutates anything, or how the parameters such as url, host, json, and zone affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is so brief that some important context is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know how to invoke this tool correctly or what to expect back. The relationship between the stated catalog and the url/host/json/zone parameters is unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes each parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not connect the parameters to HTTP status codes, but the schema's individual descriptions still provide some semantic grounding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a resource ('common HTTP status codes') and suggests a catalog, but it lacks a concrete verb or operation: it does not say whether the tool lists codes, looks them up, or checks an input against them. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as citation or normalize-url.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about which inputs are appropriate or what problem it solves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return a three-step thinking template. Prompt discarded.
| 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 |
Current time in a named IANA timezone.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits, side effects, or whether it is read-only. The simplicity of the operation mitigates this, but the mismatch between the description and the schema parameters is not addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the functionality. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the core purpose is clear, the tool is incomplete as documented because it does not explain how the parameters relate to the timezone query. The presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, json) without clarification makes the tool confusing and incomplete for a potential user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the four parameters. The schema descriptions for 'url', 'host', and 'json' are clearly unrelated to timezone lookup, and the description fails to clarify their purpose or specify that only 'zone' is relevant. This is a significant semantic gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: returning the current time for a named IANA timezone. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like utc-time or iana-zones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as utc-time for UTC or iana-zones for listing timezones. No usage context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current UTC timestamp.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations and no description of side effects, return format, or whether the tool is read-only. The presence of irrelevant input parameters without explanation further obscures the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, which is concise, but it omits essential information about parameters, usage, and output. It is more under-specified than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and any contextual information about expected input, return values, errors, or relationship to sibling tools. It is not complete enough for an agent to call correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions for url, host, json, and zone are generic and unrelated to obtaining a UTC timestamp. No explanation connects these parameters to the tool's purpose, so their meaning is effectively undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Current UTC timestamp' indicates the tool returns a UTC timestamp, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-based action. The input schema contains unrelated parameters (url, host, json, zone), which creates confusion about the tool's actual purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor is there any mention of whether arguments are needed or should be ignored. The unrelated schema parameters make usage even less clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether a body is valid JSON. The body is discarded.
| 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the body is discarded, which is a useful side-effect detail. However, with no annotations, it does not fully cover behavioral expectations such as read-only semantics, return behavior, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant wording. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the unrelated parameters, expected return value, or how validation failures are surfaced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only the 'json' parameter is aligned with the stated purpose. The parameters 'url', 'host', and 'zone' have descriptions that appear unrelated to JSON validation, and the description does not explain their role or whether they are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Check whether a body is valid JSON') and matches the tool name. It is clear, though 'body' is not the exact parameter name and the purpose is not expanded with any detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for validating JSON, but it never says when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current temperature for a city via Open-Meteo.
| 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 |
HTTP status and content type for a public URL. Body discarded.
| 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 |
Check whether a Wikipedia title exists. Title discarded after the call.
| 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 |
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
agent-tool-indexbrowser-url-okcalc-evalcitation5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+ "type": "string"
+}compatibility5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+ "type": "string"
+}domain-shape5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+ "type": "string"
+}fetch-statusfigma-url-shapefile-path-okgeo-hintgithub-repo-shapehn-front-counthsl-ok5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+ "type": "string"
+}iana-zones5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+ "type": "string"
+}inspect-robots5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+ "type": "string"
+}jira-key-shapelib-docs-hintmemory-key-countnormalize-url5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+ "type": "string"
+}playwright-url-oksearch-query-lenstatus-catalog5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+ "type": "string"
+}think-stepstimezone5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+ "type": "string"
+}utc-time5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+ "type": "string"
+}validate-json5 fields changedInput schema / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "description": "City name for a public weather hint; discarded after the call",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / feedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Public RSS or Atom URL; titles discarded",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "description": "File path to check; no disk access",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / queryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Search text; discarded after the length check",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / refAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Git ref name; discarded after the shape check",
+ "type": "string"
+}weather-hintweb-fetchwiki-title-okcitationcompatibilitydomain-shapehsl-okiana-zonesinspect-robotsnormalize-urlstatus-catalogtimezoneutc-timevalidate-jsonClaiming 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 as io.github.acme/server also 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.json on 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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
BCP 47 language tag shape