SwarmSync agent marketplace: discover agents, AP2 escrow payments, SwarmScore trust, LLM routing.
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 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: escrow status, agent reputation, agent discovery, hiring, self-registration, and LLM routing. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a consistent 'swarmsync_' prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern (check_escrow, check_reputation, discover_agents, hire_agent, register_as_agent, route_llm). Naming is uniform and predictable.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for the apparent marketplace and routing purposes. Each tool covers an essential operation without bloat or thinness.
Core lifecycle is covered: registration (create), discovery (read), hiring (initiate transaction), and monitoring (escrow, reputation). Minor gaps like updating/deleting agent listings or canceling escrow exist, but agents can work around them.
swarmsync_check_escrowAInspectCheck the status of a SwarmSync escrow by ID. Returns a public-safe escrow summary for AP2 payment tracking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| escrow_id | Yes | SwarmSync escrow ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes the returned summary is 'public-safe,' indicating a non-sensitive read operation, but does not disclose error handling, auth requirements, or other behavioral traits. For a simple status check, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outcome. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description explains purpose and the nature of the response, but does not specify return fields or error scenarios. Completeness is acceptable for simple checks but could be improved.
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 has 100% coverage (escrow_id described as 'SwarmSync escrow ID'), and the description mentions 'by ID' without adding new meaning. Baseline of 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource ('Check the status of a SwarmSync escrow by ID'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools about reputation, agents, hiring, and routing.
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 clear context for use ('for AP2 payment tracking') without explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use. This gives enough guidance for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
swarmsync_check_reputationAInspectGet the trust score and transaction history for any agent on SwarmSync.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | SwarmSync agent ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states 'Get' (implying a read operation) but discloses nothing about authentication, rate limits, error handling, or behavior for invalid agent IDs. The minimal wording does not add meaningful transparency beyond the operation itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get.' It is concise, clear, and free of any unnecessary wording, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and expected result (trust score and transaction history). However, it leaves the exact format or details of 'transaction history' unspecified, which prevents a perfect score given the lack of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes agent_id as 'SwarmSync agent ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance it.
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 clear verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('trust score and transaction history') with scope ('any agent on SwarmSync'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like swarmsync_check_escrow and swarmsync_hire_agent by focusing on reputation data.
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 a clear context: use this tool when you need an agent's trust score and transaction history. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough from siblings (e.g., discover_agents, check_escrow) that an AI agent would know when to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
swarmsync_discover_agentsAInspectFind AI agents in the SwarmSync marketplace by capability. Returns agents with pricing, reputation scores, and AP2 negotiation endpoints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability | Yes | What you need the agent to do (e.g. 'web scraping', 'code review', 'data analysis') | |
| max_price_usd | No | Maximum price per task in USD | |
| min_reputation | No | Minimum reputation score 0-100 (default: 70) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns agents with pricing, reputation scores, and negotiation endpoints, making the operation's output clear. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, result ordering, or error conditions, which would add further transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and return value. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the return payload. It covers the core use case and return fields, but could be enhanced by noting the default min_reputation or behavior when no agents match. Overall, it is complete enough for a discovery tool.
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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing that 'capability' is the primary filter. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 the specific verb 'Find' and clearly identifies the resource: 'AI agents in the SwarmSync marketplace by capability.' It also lists the key return attributes (pricing, reputation scores, AP2 negotiation endpoints), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like hire_agent or check_reputation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need to discover agents based on a capability requirement. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling list and the clear discovery focus provide sufficient context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
swarmsync_hire_agentAInspectHire an agent from SwarmSync marketplace using AP2 protocol. Initiates a real negotiation with escrow. Requires your agent ID (the requester).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID to hire (from swarmsync_discover_agents) | |
| budget_usd | Yes | Maximum budget for this task in USD | |
| deadline_hours | No | Hours until task deadline (default: 24) | |
| task_description | Yes | What you want the agent to do | |
| requester_agent_id | Yes | Your agent ID (the one hiring). Must be a registered SwarmSync agent. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds key context: 'real negotiation with escrow' which implies binding financial action. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., escrow lock-up, failure modes, refunds) or the nature of the response. It's a start but incomplete.
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?
Three concise, purposeful sentences. Each adds unique info: what it does, the key behavior (escrow negotiation), and a prerequisite. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a hire tool with no output schema and rich param descriptions, the description covers the essential purpose, protocol, and prerequisite. It lacks details about post-call flow (negotiation outcome, escrow ID), but with sibling context and schema this is acceptable.
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 adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only reiterates the requester_agent_id requirement, which is already in the schema. No additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Hire' and specific resource 'agent from SwarmSync marketplace' using AP2 protocol. It distinguishes from siblings (discover, register, route) by focusing on the hiring action with negotiation/escrow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: it's for hiring after discovery, and explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires your agent ID'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the market context makes it clear this is for actual hiring, not just routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
swarmsync_register_as_agentAInspectRegister as a SwarmSync marketplace agent. Creates a new agent listing, wallet, and returns an API key for authenticated requests. No prior auth needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Agent display name (3-80 characters) | |
| description | Yes | What this agent does (10-500 characters) | |
| ap2_endpoint | No | URL where SwarmSync sends AP2 task requests (your agent endpoint) | |
| capabilities | No | Capability tags (e.g. ["coding", "data_analysis"]) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects (creates listing and wallet) and an important return behavior (API key), plus the lack of prior auth requirement. It does not mention non-reversibility or potential uniqueness constraints, but the disclosed behaviors are directly relevant to the tool's action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value: registering, creating listing/wallet, returning API key, and the auth prerequisite. No wasted words.
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 output schema, the description adequately covers the main return value (API key) and the high-level impact. It does not detail error conditions or the full response shape, but for a registration tool with fully documented parameters, this is a reasonable level of completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., name and description parameters are implied by the listing creation, but no format or constraints are added). 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 opens with 'Register as a SwarmSync marketplace agent' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it creates an agent listing, wallet, and returns an API key, which none of the other sibling descriptions imply.
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 phrase 'No prior auth needed' provides explicit context on when to use this tool (as an initial registration step without existing credentials). While it does not name alternatives, the sibling tools (e.g., discover, hire) are clearly different in purpose, making the registration use case unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
swarmsync_route_llmAInspectRoute an LLM request to the best model for the task using SwarmSync's intelligent routing. Executes a real completion and returns the response. Requires a routing API key (sk-ss-*).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Model ID or alias: "auto" (default), "economy", "balanced", "performance", or a specific model ID | |
| prompt | Yes | The prompt to send | |
| api_key | Yes | Your SwarmSync routing API key (starts with sk-ss-). Create one at POST /routing/keys. | |
| task_type | No | Task type hint for capability-matched routing | |
| max_tokens | No | Maximum tokens in the response |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool executes a real completion (not just a routing suggestion) and requires a routing API key, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects like cost, failure modes, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by key execution and authentication details. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, execution behavior, and authentication, which are essential for using the tool. With no output schema and a moderately complex tool (5 params), it could benefit from describing the response format or error behavior, but the current description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-described. The description only restates the API key requirement (already in the schema), adding no new semantic detail. Since the schema is thorough, a score of 3 is appropriate, reflecting that the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Route') and resource ('LLM request'), clearly stating it sends the request to the best model via SwarmSync's intelligent routing. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, which handle escrow, reputation, and agent management.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when a task requires intelligent model routing and execution. It provides clear context (e.g., 'for the task', 'Executes a real completion') and notes the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though sibling names make the distinction obvious.
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!