A
licenseA
qualityD
maintenanceGeographic data (250+ countries, 150K+ cities), live exchange rates with 25 base currencies, and IP geolocation for AI assistants. Powered by ApogeoAPI.
8
46
1
MIT
ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 shape
Server Details
ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 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
D1.9/5.0
Scored across 11 tools
Disambiguation2/5
Several tools overlap in purpose, such as 'citation' and 'normalize-url' both handling URLs, and 'timezone' and 'utc-time' both dealing with time. While not identical, the boundaries are unclear, making it easy to confuse them.
Naming Consistency1/5
Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: single-word names (citation, compatibility, timezone) are mixed with hyphenated verb-noun phrases (inspect-robots, normalize-url, validate-json). Verb usage also varies (return, show, split, fetch, check), creating a chaotic and unpredictable pattern.
Tool Count2/5
With 11 tools, the count is not inherently excessive, but the lack of a unifying domain makes the number feel arbitrary and unjustified. The tools span unrelated areas, suggesting a random collection rather than a focused set.
Completeness1/5
There is no clear domain to assess completeness against. The server name suggests ISO 3166-1 (country codes), but none of the tools actually address that. The functions cover URL parsing, HTTP status, timezones, robots.txt, and JSON validation, with no obvious coverage of any coherent purpose.
Available Tools
29 toolsagent-tool-indexInspect
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 |
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 |
citationBInspect
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
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a positive transparency note. However, it does not clarify whether the tool performs a network request to obtain HTTP status, any rate limits, or other side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous.
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 effectively communicates the primary action and a key side effect. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured.
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 presence of four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand how the parameters interact or what output format to expect. It also fails to differentiate the tool from closely related siblings, leaving the agent without enough context to select it confidently.
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 schema descriptions for parameters are present (100% coverage) but are vague and do not explain how they relate to the tool's core function. For instance, 'host', 'json', and 'zone' are not mentioned in the description, and their schema descriptions like 'Public hostname' or 'IANA timezone name' lack context for a citation tool. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog. It also explicitly notes that page content is not stored, adding clarity.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as normalize-url or inspect-robots. It only states the output without contextualizing the appropriate use case.
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
C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that identifiers are not retained, giving a privacy hint, but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any other behavioral aspects.
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 sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is concise and to the point, though the point itself is unclear.
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 lacks essential context about what 'classified' means, how the four distinct inputs (url, host, json, zone) contribute to classification, and what kind of output the user should expect. This makes it incomplete for understanding the tool's role in a larger workflow.
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 schema descriptions for each parameter are present and provide some meaning (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). However, they are generic one-liners and do not clarify how the parameters interact or relate to the tool's classification purpose. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3.
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 classification means or what the tool actually does. It lacks a clear verb-object pair that defines the tool's primary 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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, timezone). The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or comparison to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
domain-shapeCInspect
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
C2.2/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'without WHOIS or ownership data', which is a negative constraint, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation safety hints, this is a significant gap.
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 one sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no output schema. The single sentence does not earn its place because it omits essential guidance on the other inputs, making it inappropriately brief for the tool's complexity.
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 four unrelated parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain how the parameters interact, which are required for the hostname-splitting operation, what the return value looks like, or any edge cases. An agent has almost no basis for correct invocation.
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 input schema has 100% coverage, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description does not connect these parameters to the stated purpose. The schema descriptions themselves are generic and mismatched (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' for 'url', 'JSON text to validate' for 'json'), and the description adds no meaning beyond that. An agent cannot infer how 'json' or 'zone' relate to splitting a hostname.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Split a hostname into labels'. This is clear and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like normalize-url or citation, which may also handle hostnames, and it ignores the other three parameters (url, json, zone) that appear in the schema, leaving their purpose unexplained.
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. There is no mention of when to prefer this over normalize-url or citation, and no exclusions or conditions. The description implies a use case for hostname splitting but gives no context for the other input fields, so an agent cannot decide when to invoke it.
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
D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no information about side effects, read-only behavior, data persistence, or operational impact. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the minimal, ambiguous purpose statement.
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 very brief and front-loaded, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It is a single sentence, yet it lacks a verb and substantive detail, so it is concise but not effectively structured.
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?
There is no output schema and no description of what the tool returns. The description does not mention return format, edge cases, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent without enough information to understand the tool's complete 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?
Although the schema has 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions—url, host, json, zone—do not align clearly with the stated purpose of returning common IANA timezone names. The schema descriptions are generic and seem to belong to different tools, and the description adds no extra meaning to clarify how these parameters relate to the tool's function.
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 is a noun phrase ('Common IANA timezone names for clock calls') rather than a clear action, and it does not specify what operation the tool performs (e.g., list, validate, or normalize). It vaguely identifies the resource but fails to distinguish it clearly from sibling tools like timezone or utc-time.
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 instead of alternatives. The phrase 'for clock calls' hints at a use case but does not explain how it differs from timezone or utc-time, nor does it mention any prerequisites or selection criteria.
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
C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is misleading because the input schema includes parameters like 'json' and 'zone' with descriptions unrelated to robots.txt, creating confusion about actual behavior. No side effects or error conditions are disclosed.
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 is front-loaded with the core action and output, making it easy to parse.
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 omits essential context about the mismatched parameters, what 'group counts' means, and potential failure modes, leaving the tool inadequately specified for correct invocation.
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 (e.g., 'json' as 'JSON text to validate') contradict the tool's stated purpose, and the description does not clarify how these parameters should be used for fetching robots.txt, providing no added meaning beyond the misleading schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch a public robots.txt') and the intended output ('return group counts only'), making its primary purpose unambiguous.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or validate-json, leaving the selection criteria to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
iso3166-okDInspect
ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 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
D1.4/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses no side effects, permissions, data handling, or other behavioral traits. With no annotations present, the description alone carries the full burden, and it reveals nothing about what happens when the tool is invoked.
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 extremely short, but brevity is not beneficial when the content is useless. It is not 'appropriately sized' because it conveys almost no information and fails to say anything meaningful about the tool.
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 omits the core functionality, expected output, and how the inputs map to the tool's supposed focus on ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes. An agent cannot determine what this tool does, making it impossible to use correctly.
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 schema descriptions cover all parameters (url, host, json, zone), giving each a reasonable definition. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters relate to the tool's purpose, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 'ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 shape' is a noun phrase with no verb or action, so it does not state what the tool does. The parameters (url, host, json, zone) do not align with any clear purpose, leaving the tool's function entirely ambiguous.
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 or how it differs from sibling tools like normalize-url, validate-json, or iana-zones. The description gives no context, selection criteria, or examples of appropriate use.
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-urlBInspect
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
B3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the operation (normalization) but not potential edge cases like invalid URLs, error handling, or side effects. With no annotations provided, more behavioral detail would be expected; however, the simple nature of the operation mitigates some ambiguity.
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, direct sentence with no redundant wording or filler. It efficiently conveys the primary action and what is removed.
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 lacks essential context: how the input parameters (especially json and zone) relate to the normalization process, what the expected output format is, and under what conditions the tool should be invoked. The mismatch between description and schema leaves the agent without a coherent mental model.
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 description, but the descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's purpose. For instance, 'host' is described as an input, yet the tool outputs a host; 'json' and 'zone' appear unrelated to URL normalization. This disconnect undermines the usefulness of the parameter descriptions.
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 core function — returning origin, host, and path for a URL while dropping query and fragment. However, the input schema includes unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) that don't align with the stated purpose, which could confuse an agent about what the tool actually operates on.
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 (e.g., validate-json, timezone). The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or non-use cases, leaving the agent to infer suitability on its own.
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
D1.8/5.0
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 whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or whether it has side effects. With no annotations to fill this gap, transparency is minimal.
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 short sentence and is not verbose. It is front-loaded and easy to read, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
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 too minimal for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain the parameters, output format, or how the catalog is accessed, and the schema mismatches compound the incompleteness.
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 input schema lists four parameters with descriptions that appear entirely unrelated to a status code catalog (URL, hostname, JSON, timezone). The description does not clarify their meaning or purpose in this context, so parameter semantics are misleading or absent.
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 that the tool provides a catalog of common HTTP status codes, which gives a basic sense of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what the catalog contains or how it is presented.
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 sibling tools, nor any indication of the intended use case or prerequisites.
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
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It states a simple read operation but discloses nothing about validation of the timezone name, error handling, network dependencies, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal disclosure.
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 sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, earning its place. Under-specification is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one.
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 tool has four parameters, but only 'zone' relates to the described purpose. The presence of 'url', 'host', and 'json' is unexplained and confusing. Additionally, there is no output schema and no mention of the return format, making the definition incomplete for a tool an agent must call correctly.
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%, with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'IANA timezone name' for zone). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Current time in a named IANA timezone' clearly states the verb (returns current time) and the resource (a named IANA timezone). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like utc-time (likely UTC) and iana-zones (list of zones) without needing to open their schemas.
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. With sibling tools utc-time and iana-zones available, the agent receives no routing information. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions.
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
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description does not address the odd input schema containing url, host, json, and zone parameters that are unrelated to 'current UTC timestamp.' This creates ambiguity about whether those parameters are ignored, accepted for compatibility, or used in some undocumented way.
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 short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and places the core purpose upfront.
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?
Missing essential context about output format, parameter handling, and relationship to sibling tools. The simple purpose is undercut by the confusing input schema, and the description does not explain or justify the mismatch.
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 every parameter has a schema description, those descriptions are generic and do not relate to the tool's stated purpose. The description does not clarify why these parameters exist or how they are used, so the high schema coverage fails to provide meaningful semantics.
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?
States it returns the current UTC timestamp, which is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like timezone and iana-zones. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not specify the output format (seconds, milliseconds, ISO 8601, etc.).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as timezone or iana-zones. The one-line description provides no selection criteria or context for when the tool is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate-jsonDInspect
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
D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the body is discarded, which implies no persistence. However, it does not clarify what happens on success or failure, nor does it explain the side effects or return behavior. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.
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 very brief and front-loads the main action, but it lacks a clear structure. The single sentence is concise but omits necessary context, making it less effective.
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 tool is incomplete given the complexity. The schema includes parameters that are not explained by the description, and the description does not address why they are present. The overall context is confusing and incomplete for a typical use case.
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 description does not clarify the parameters. While the schema includes descriptions, they are mismatched (url, host, zone are irrelevant to JSON validation). The description adds no meaning to these extraneous parameters and does not resolve the confusion.
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 if a body is valid JSON, but the mention of 'body' is inconsistent with the schema which has a 'json' parameter. Also, the presence of unrelated parameters (url, host, zone) creates confusion 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.
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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools.
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
- 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" +}
- Changed
iso3166-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
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
citation - First observed
compatibility - First observed
domain-shape - First observed
iana-zones - First observed
inspect-robots - First observed
iso3166-ok - 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
BCP 47 language tag shape
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides world country data from the REST Countries API, enabling search by name, ISO code, region, language, or currency, with details like capital, population, and languages.14MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceFormat, validate and normalize international phone numbers, work out exactly how to dial one country from another, clean phone columns in CRM or contact exports, and find calling windows across time zones — using the countrycalling.codes API and MCP server.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceGlobal postal code lookups, validation, and city search for 240+ countries with timezone, admin region, and elevation metadata. Sub-10ms responses at $0.000028/query with 1,000 free queries on signup.41MIT