Skip to main content
Glama

glimind

by io.github.shawndei

find_alternatives

Find LIVE tools that do a similar job to a given tool — call this when a tool is down, rate-limited, or missing, to get a working substitute ranked by capability similarity and real traffic. Returns ready-to-use tool ids — each with its actual connection endpoint (MCP endpoint URL or package to launch) — so you can switch to it immediately.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNoOptional coarse task tag.
toolIdYesThe tool you want a substitute for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns ready-to-use tool IDs with connection endpoints, and that results are ranked by capability similarity and real traffic. It does not mention side effects, auth, or error handling, but for a retrieval tool this is adequate. No contradiction with missing annotations.

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 consists of two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states purpose and usage, the second explains what is returned. It is front-loaded with the most critical information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return value and ranking criteria. It could be improved by mentioning pagination or error handling, but for a simple retrieval tool, it is sufficient.

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% (both parameters have clear descriptions). The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions the tool's purpose which implicitly relates to the required parameter. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: find LIVE alternatives for a given tool. It specifies the use case when a tool is down, rate-limited, or missing, and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'LIVE', ranking by capability and traffic, and returning connection endpoints for immediate switch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when a tool is down, rate-limited, or missing, to get a working substitute'. It implies when not to use (e.g., for general discovery), and context from sibling names like 'find_related_tools' and 'discover_tools' provides alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All glimind toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct, well-defined purpose: checking reliability, discovering tools, finding alternatives, getting recipes, routing tasks, etc. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., check_tool_reliability, route_task, watch_tool). The only minor deviation is 'how_to_use_glimind', which still follows a clear verb phrase convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 15 tools, the set is well-scoped for a comprehensive meta-layer covering discovery, reliability checking, preparation, batch routing, reporting, and notifications. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full workflow of discovering, checking, preparing, calling, and reporting on tools. A minor gap is the lack of a direct 'list all tools' catalog, but the discovery tools effectively fill this need.

Resources