Environment Nature Mcp
Server Details
MCP server for Environment & Nature
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 1.5/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Three tools (get, list, search) have vague, overlapping descriptions suggesting they fetch similar data. Only health_check is clearly distinct due to its minimal but unique description.
Three tools follow a verb_environment_nature pattern, but health_check breaks consistency by omitting the domain prefix. Naming is partially consistent but the exception creates confusion.
Four tools is slightly below average but acceptable for a narrow, query-focused server. The count itself is not problematic, but the lack of non-query tools limits the scope.
Only read-oriented tools (get, list, search) and a health check are provided. Missing CRUD operations (create, update, delete) for managing environment/nature data, which is a significant gap for a typical data service.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_environment_nature_dataDInspect
Tool: get_environment_nature_data. Uses: httpx public APIs. Price: ${PRICE_PER_CALL}/call
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it uses HTTP APIs but nothing about idempotency, side effects, or data handling. The price placeholder is 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?
The description is extremely brief but at the cost of essential information. Every sentence should add value; here, 'Uses: httpx public APIs' adds little.
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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide necessary context for correct invocation. For a tool with one required parameter, this is critically incomplete.
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 sole required parameter 'id' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description gives no clue what it represents or its expected format.
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 only mentions 'Uses: httpx public APIs' and a price placeholder, but does not explain what data is retrieved. The name suggests environment/nature data, but lacks specificity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (health_check, list_environment_nature_items, search_environment_nature). The agent has no basis for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkDInspect
Health check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it is read-only, what it checks, or side effects). The agent has zero insight into tool 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 extremely short but not appropriately concise—it is under-specified and lacks substance. It fails to earn its place as it provides no useful information.
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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It should at least clarify the scope of the health check; instead, it is almost entirely uninformative.
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 tool has no parameters, so the empty schema already covers parameter information. The description adds no value but does not detract; 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 is a tautology ('Health check.') that restates the tool name without specifying what exactly is being checked (e.g., system, API, or database). It provides no actionable information for an AI agent.
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?
No guidance on when or why to use this tool. It does not distinguish it from sibling tools, which are unrelated (environment nature data), leaving the agent without decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_environment_nature_itemsDInspect
Tool: list_environment_nature_items. Uses: httpx public APIs. Price: ${PRICE_PER_CALL}/call
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filters | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. The note about httpx public APIs hints at external dependence but does not constitute meaningful behavioral disclosure.
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 short but wastes the first sentence repeating the tool name. The second sentence provides only generic API and pricing info, which is marginally useful but not prioritized for tool selection.
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's complexity (free-form object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what data is returned, what filters are valid, or how to interpret results.
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 only parameter 'filters' is a free-form object with no schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain what filters are expected or how to structure them, leaving the agent with no meaningful guidance.
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 repeats the tool name and mentions it uses public APIs but does not clarify what 'nature items' are or what listing entails. The purpose remains vague, and no differentiation from siblings is provided.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (get_environment_nature_data, search_environment_nature, health_check). No context for appropriate use is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_environment_natureDInspect
Tool: search_environment_nature. Uses: httpx public APIs. Price: ${PRICE_PER_CALL}/call
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read/write nature, side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The reference to 'public APIs' offers no concrete information.
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 extremely short but not concise in a useful way. The two sentences provide no operational value; they do not earn their place.
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 a single string parameter and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits core functionality, expected input format, and return values.
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 sole parameter 'query' is undocumented in both the schema and description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but provides no semantic meaning.
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 only restates the tool name and vaguely mentions 'uses httpx public APIs' without specifying the operation or resource. It does not distinguish from siblings like get_environment_nature_data or list_environment_nature_items.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!