glimind

route_tasks

Batch version of route_task: give an ARRAY of plain-language sub-tasks and get the best live tool for EACH in one call — so a multi-step plan collapses N round-trips into one. Each result carries the tool's endpoint, input schema, example args, free/paid + how-to-pay, and fallbacks (compact by default to save tokens). Use this at the start of a multi-step task to plan every step at once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`view`	No	'compact' (default) or 'full'.
`tasks`	Yes	Plain-language sub-tasks (max 10).
`category`	No	Optional capability category to narrow all choices.
`freeOnly`	No	Only consider FREE tools.
`fallbacks`	No	How many backup tools per sub-task (default 5, max 10).
`maxPricePerCall`	No	Cap per-call price in USD; paid tools above this are excluded (applies to every sub-task).
`requireAutomatable`	No	Only tools payable autonomously (free or x402).

Schema Changelog

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

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 11, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / fallbacks

Added value: +{
+  "description": "How many backup tools per sub-task (default 5, max 10).",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / maxPricePerCall

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cap per-call price in USD; paid tools above this are excluded (applies to every sub-task).",
+  "type": "number"
+}

AddedJul 10, 2026
RemovedJul 10, 2026
AddedJul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It details the behavior: returns endpoint, input schema, example args, free/paid info, how-to-pay, and fallbacks. It doesn't mention side effects (likely none), but is thorough for a read-like operation. Minor gap: no explicit mention of idempotency or lack of mutations.

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 paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose and then details. It's efficient but could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability. Still, every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains what each result contains. For a complex tool with 7 parameters, it provides enough behavioral and output context. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case behavior, but overall complete for planning tasks.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant context: 'compact' vs 'full' view, 'plain-language sub-tasks (max 10)', 'cap per-call price', and 'only consider FREE tools'. It enriches the schema with usage intent and defaults.

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 it's a batch version of route_task, taking an array of sub-tasks and returning best live tools for each, collapsing multiple round-trips. This distinguishes it from the sibling route_task.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool 'at the start of a multi-step task to plan every step at once', implying it's for batch planning, while the singular route_task is for single steps. No exclusions or alternatives needed beyond that.

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

All glimind tools Inspect

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

Need Help?