Cross-session idempotency, URLs as schema-validated JSON, and a record of missing capabilities.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a completely distinct concern: atomic claim-checking, structured URL fetching, and capability gap reporting. There is no overlap in purpose or use case.
All names are snake_case and start with a verb, but 'check_and_claim' uses a conjunction and compound verb while the others are simple verb_noun. Minor deviation from a strict pattern.
Three tools is small but fits the focused 'rescue' purpose: atomic claim, structured fetch, and capability request. Each earns its place; slightly thin but not deficient.
The surface covers key agent rescue needs: idempotency, reliable external data retrieval, and signaling missing capabilities. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for local state inspection) but core workflows are supported.
check_and_claimCheck and claimAInspectAtomically check whether an action identified by a key was already performed, and claim it if not. Use it before performing a non-idempotent action that may have completed in an earlier attempt (a payment, a message, a write), or when you need to remember something across sessions. Returns 'claimed' if you are first and 'already_done' if not. Do not use it as a general data store or as a result cache.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Stable identifier for the action, e.g. 'invoice-2026-07-A491:pay'. | |
| metadata | No | Small payload returned alongside the claim. Do not include secrets. | |
| ttl_seconds | No | How long the claim lasts, in seconds. Default 86400 (1 day), max 30 days. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains atomicity, return values ('claimed' and 'already_done'), and the intended context. It does not detail error behavior or persistence specifics, but the TTL parameter is documented in the 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 three sentences long, with the core action stated first, followed by usage context and return values. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly states the possible return values. Combined with full parameter coverage in the schema and clear usage/anti-usage guidance, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 input schema already covers all three parameters with 100% coverage, including detailed descriptions for 'key', 'metadata', and 'ttl_seconds'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb phrase, 'Atomically check whether... and claim it if not', which precisely identifies the tool's function. It clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings by focusing on idempotency claiming, a unique capability not shared by fetch_structured or request_capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it before performing a non-idempotent action' and gives concrete examples (payment, message, write). It also provides a when-not-to-use directive: 'Do not use it as a general data store or as a result cache.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
fetch_structuredFetch a URL as structured JSONAInspectFetch a public URL and return its content as JSON validated against the schema you pass. Use it when you need data from a page and cannot parse it reliably yourself. Do not use it for URLs requiring authentication or a session, for internal networks, or when you already have the content — extract it yourself in that case. If structured extraction is unavailable, the response carries degraded: true, data: null and the page text for you to parse: check degraded before reading data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http(s) URL. | |
| schema | Yes | JSON Schema of the object you want back. Missing fields come back as null. | |
| instructions | No | Optional. What exactly to look for if the page is ambiguous. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses the critical limitation that only public URLs are supported, and it thoroughly explains the degraded mode: 'If structured extraction is unavailable, the response carries `degraded: true`, `data: null` and the page `text` for you to parse: check `degraded` before reading `data`.' This goes beyond basic safety hints and informs the agent exactly what to expect and how to handle fallback 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 four sentences long, yet every sentence earns its place. It opens with the core function, immediately gives usage guidance, lists clear exclusions, and ends with a critical fallback instruction. There is no fluff or redundancy; the structure effectively front-loads the most important information for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate heavily—and it does. It explains the returned format in normal cases (JSON validated against the provided schema) and fully specifies the degraded response structure, including the 'degraded' flag and 'text' field. It also warns about authentication and network restrictions. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool confidently without additional context.
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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions for 'url', 'schema', and 'instructions'. The description does not add extra parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description's value lies more in the overall behavior rather than parameter clarification.
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 action: 'Fetch a public URL and return its content as JSON validated against the schema you pass.' This is a specific verb (fetch) with a clear resource (public URL) and a well-defined outcome (structured JSON). The mention of the degraded mode further clarifies the purpose. Although sibling tools are unrelated, the description leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when you need data from a page and cannot parse it reliably yourself.' It also gives clear exclusions: 'Do not use it for URLs requiring authentication or a session, for internal networks, or when you already have the content — extract it yourself in that case.' This perfectly distinguishes appropriate usage from alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_capabilityRequest a capability that does not existAInspectRecord a specific need that none of the tools available to you can cover. Today it almost always answers that the capability is unavailable, and suggests alternatives only when they genuinely exist; its purpose is to measure what agents ask for and nobody serves. Use it when you are blocked by a missing capability — not for general questions, and not for anything you can work out by reasoning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | What exactly you need, in one or two sentences. Do not include personal data. | |
| context | No | Optional. What you tried and why it did not work. | |
| deadline | No | Optional. ISO 8601. | |
| would_pay | No | Optional. Whether your policy allows paying to get this solved. Answer honestly: a false answer unlocks nothing and degrades the measurement. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool 'almost always answers that the capability is unavailable,' that alternatives are suggested only when they genuinely exist, and that the underlying purpose is to measure unmet agent needs. This is significant behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value: what it does, how it behaves, and when to use it. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage well. It explains the likely response ('almost always answers that the capability is unavailable') and the fallback behavior. It does not fully specify the response format, but for a simple request-logging tool the description is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; however, it frames the overall intent ('Record a specific need') which aligns with the 'need' parameter. No extra semantics are provided for context, deadline, or would_pay.
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 verb and resource: 'Record a specific need that none of the tools available to you can cover.' It clearly distinguishes this from other tools by framing it as a fallback for missing capabilities and explicitly says it is not for general questions or things solvable by reasoning.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when you are blocked by a missing capability' and includes exclusions: 'not for general questions, and not for anything you can work out by reasoning.' It does not name specific alternative sibling tools, but the exclusions are clear enough for an agent to avoid misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!