mcp
Server Details
Validated Laravel plugin data - health scores, compatibility and vendor trust
- Status
- Unhealthy
- 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 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one searches for plugins with filters, the other retrieves details for a specific plugin. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores and a 'tool' suffix, maintaining a uniform naming convention.
With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a plugin service. Common operations like listing or trending plugins are absent, but the narrow focus on search and details might be acceptable.
The tool surface lacks a way to list or browse plugins, requiring users to know the exact plugin name for details. Search helps, but without a listing, agents may hit dead ends.
Available Tools
2 toolsget-plugin-details-toolGet Plugin Details ToolBInspect
Fetch detailed information for a specific plugin given its vendor/package name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | No | Full Composer package name in the form "vendor/package". | |
| include_versions | No | Whether to include the versions array in the response. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any behavioral details beyond what is already in the input schema. With no annotations, the agent receives no information about safety (e.g., read-only nature), authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for informed invocation.
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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word is necessary. No redundant or extraneous 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?
Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no required fields, output schema present), the description covers the basic purpose. However, it fails to provide usage guidelines or behavioral context, resulting in notable gaps that could affect correct invocation.
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?
While the input schema has 100% coverage, the description only implicitly mentions the 'package' parameter through the phrase 'vendor/package name'. The 'include_versions' parameter is not mentioned at all. No new semantic context is added 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 clearly states the action ('fetch detailed information') and the specific resource ('a specific plugin') using the identifier 'vendor/package name'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search-plugin-tool' which implies a broader search 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search-plugin-tool'. There is no mention of prerequisites, or exclusive scenarios, which is needed for proper tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search-plugin-toolSearch Plugin ToolCInspect
This tool enables the search of packagist packages that support laravel with advanced filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number to return. | |
| text_search | No | Search by text in plugin name or description. | |
| health_score | No | Search by plugin health score. | |
| vendor_filter | No | Search by plugin vendor name. (eg: spatie) | |
| return_archived | No | Return archived plugins as well in the results?. | |
| php_compatibility | No | Search by plugin php compatibility where there is at least one version supporting that php version (eg 8.5). | |
| laravel_compatibility | No | Search by plugin's laravel compatibility where there is at least one version supporting that laravel version (eg 10). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states it performs a search with filters, but does not disclose pagination behavior (page parameter), rate limits, auth requirements, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic verb.
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 with no fluff, but the phrasing 'enables the search of' is indirect. It is concise and gets the point across, though rewording could improve clarity.
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 complexity (7 parameters, output schema exists), the description is too minimal. It does not explain how filters combine, default behaviors, or pagination. Although the output schema covers return values, the lack of an overview leaves gaps for effective use.
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 each parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'advanced filters', which is vague. The baseline 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 clearly states the tool searches packagist packages supporting Laravel with advanced filters. It is a specific verb-resource combination, and the purpose is distinct from the sibling tool 'get-plugin-details-tool', which likely fetches details for a single package.
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 is given on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that the sibling tool is for fetching details after searching, nor does it specify any prerequisites or limitations.
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!