insuranceoracle
Server Details
InsuranceOracle - 12 insurance compliance tools: GDV, BaFin VAG, Solvency II, IDD.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- ToolOracle/insuranceoracle
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 3.5/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of insurance (claims, risks, regulations, company lookup, glossary, etc.) with clear, non-overlapping purposes. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain noun prefix followed by an underscore and a descriptive verb or noun. Naming is uniform and predictable.
12 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific server. The tool set covers multiple facets of insurance without being excessive or too sparse.
The server covers risk assessment, news, regulations, company info, and glossary comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., policy management or claim filing), but these are likely out of scope for an information-oriented service.
Available Tools
12 toolsclaim_newsBInspect
Major insurance claim news by event type: storm, flood, earthquake, hail, fire, cyber.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language: de or en (default: de) | |
| limit | No | Max articles 1-20 (default: 10) | |
| event_type | No | Event type: storm, flood, earthquake, hail, fire, cyber, all (default: storm) |
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 whether the tool is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination. It only gives a high-level purpose.
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 single-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded with the key verb and resource, but it is too brief, lacking structure for more complex details.
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 and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain default behavior, required fields, or what results look like, leaving significant 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing event types already covered in the schema, so it meets the baseline.
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 explicitly states the tool retrieves major insurance claim news filtered by event type, listing common types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like insurance_news, which likely covers general news.
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 for claim news by event type but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like insurance_news or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
earthquake_riskAInspect
Real-time earthquake data from USGS. Filter by time period, minimum magnitude, and proximity to a location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | Time period: hour, day, week, month, significant_month (default: week) | |
| latitude | No | Filter near this latitude | |
| longitude | No | Filter near this longitude | |
| radius_km | No | Search radius in km (default: 500) | |
| min_magnitude | No | Minimum magnitude (default: 4.5) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should disclose behaviors like response format, rate limits, or data freshness. Only states functionality, not 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?
Two efficient sentences, front-loaded with source and purpose. No fluff.
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?
Adequate for a simple data retrieval tool, but missing output format or pagination details. With no output schema, more context on return values would help.
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?
All 5 parameters have descriptions in schema (100% coverage). Description reiterates filter types but adds no new meaning beyond what schema already provides.
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?
Clearly states it provides real-time earthquake data from USGS and lists filter options. Distinct from sibling tools like natcat_live or weather_risk.
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?
Implies use for earthquake queries but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., natcat_history). No when-not or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
health_checkAInspect
InsuranceOracle server status and backend connectivity 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 are provided, but the description implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose rate limits, response format, or whether it's safe to call repeatedly.
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 covers the essential purpose without any fluff.
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 health check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough to convey its purpose and expected behavior.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but that's acceptable for a zero-parameter tool.
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 it checks 'server status and backend connectivity' with a specific verb and resource. It's distinct from siblings like claim_news or risk_score.
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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The purpose is implied, but the description doesn't provide scenarios where this should be used first or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
insurance_companyAInspect
Look up EU insurance company by name or LEI number. Returns GLEIF registration status, country, address, and Wikidata enrichment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lei | No | LEI code (alternative to name) | |
| name | No | Company name e.g. 'Allianz SE', 'AXA SA', 'Munich Re' | |
| country | No | Country code filter: DE, FR, GB, NL (optional) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It states return values (GLEIF status, country, etc.) and implies a read-only lookup, but does not explicitly confirm safety, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but minimal.
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?
Description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. Front-loaded with key action and resource.
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?
No output schema exists; description gives a brief list of returned data but lacks details on response format, error handling, or edge cases. Adequate for a simple lookup 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?
Schema has 100% parameter description coverage; the description adds little beyond restating the purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters with examples.
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 'Look up' and the resource 'EU insurance company by name or LEI number', and lists returned data. It differentiates well from sibling tools like claim_news or earthquake_risk.
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 (when needing company details by name/LEI) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison to alternatives. Lacks exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
insurance_glossaryAInspect
Explain insurance and Solvency II terms in German or English. Covers: SCR, MCR, ORSA, SFCR, IDD, LEI, NAT CAT, reinsurance, premium, DORA, IFRS 17.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Response language: de or en (default: de) | |
| term | No | Term to explain e.g. 'SCR', 'Solvency II', 'ORSA', 'Elementarschadenversicherung' |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'explain' and lists covered terms, adding context. Could explicitly state lack of side effects.
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 sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second provides examples. Efficiently front-loaded with essential 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?
No output schema, and description does not explain return format. For a simple glossary, it might be sufficient, but agents could benefit from knowing whether response includes definitions, examples, or references.
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 covers 100% of parameters, baseline 3. Description adds value by listing example terms (SCR, Solvency II, etc.) in the main text, providing context beyond schema parameter descriptions.
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?
Clearly states the tool explains insurance and Solvency II terms in German or English, with a specific verb 'explain' and resource 'glossary'. Distinguishes from sibling tools which cover news, risk, and regulations.
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?
Implied usage is for term definitions. No explicit when-to-use or not, but the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear. Could mention alternatives for news-related queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
insurance_newsCInspect
Insurance industry news by topic. Topics: solvency, life, health, property, liability, auto, reinsurance, regulation, natcat, cyber, claims, dora.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language: de or en (default: de) | |
| limit | No | Max articles 1-20 (default: 10) | |
| topic | No | Topic: solvency, life, health, property, natcat, cyber, claims, dora, regulation, reinsurance (default: solvency) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral details like data freshness, caching, or pagination. It only states it provides news, which is insufficient for a data retrieval tool.
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 and to the point, using two sentences. However, the list of topics is redundant with the schema and introduces inaccuracies.
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 lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., headline, date, source) and does not compensate for missing output schema or annotations. The inconsistency with the schema further reduces 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?
The description lists topics (including 'liability' and 'auto') that are not present in the schema's topic enumeration, creating inconsistency and misleading the agent. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds incorrect information, degrading trust.
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 fetches insurance industry news by topic and lists possible topics. It distinguishes from sibling 'claim_news' by being broader, though not explicitly stated.
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 alternatives such as 'claim_news' or other news-related siblings. The agent receives no contextual cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
insurance_regulationBInspect
EU and German insurance regulatory news and updates. Topics: general, bafin, eiopa, idd, gdpr, dora, ifrs17, sustainability, consumer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language: de or en (default: de) | |
| topic | No | Topic: general, bafin, eiopa, idd, dora, ifrs17, gdpr, sustainability, consumer (default: general) | |
| country | No | Country: DE, EU (default: DE) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only lists topics and scope, lacking details on return format, pagination, update frequency, or any side effects. Agent cannot infer behavioral traits beyond the schema.
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?
Single efficient sentence that front-loads purpose and lists topics. No redundant information, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate purpose and parameters).
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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, description conveys core functionality and scope. However, lacks behavioral info (e.g., output format, rate limits) that would be necessary for a news tool without annotations.
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?
Input schema provides full descriptions for all 3 parameters (100% coverage). Description merely repeats topic list from schema, adding no new meaning. 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?
Description clearly states it provides EU and German insurance regulatory news, listing specific topics. Distinguishes from siblings like insurance_news by focusing on regulatory content, but could explicitly mention the action (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'search').
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?
Implied usage is for EU/German regulatory news, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like insurance_news or claim_news. No exclusions or best practices provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
natcat_historyBInspect
Historical natural catastrophe statistics for risk modeling. Significant events by type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Region filter (optional) | |
| event_type | No | Event type: earthquake, flood, storm, fire (default: earthquake) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'historical' and 'significant events' but does not explain data update frequency, read-only nature, or any system effects. The description is minimal.
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-load the purpose. No wasted words, though the second sentence is very brief. Could be slightly more efficient by combining.
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 low complexity (two optional params, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on output format or when to choose this over natcat_live. Reasonable but not thorough.
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% with both parameters described. The description adds 'Significant events by type' which provides context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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 provides historical natural catastrophe statistics for risk modeling, focusing on significant events by type. It distinguishes from siblings like natcat_live (likely live data) and earthquake_risk.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., natcat_live for current events). The description implies use for historical data but does not provide exclusion criteria or mention sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
natcat_liveCInspect
Live natural catastrophe alerts worldwide from GDACS. Returns earthquakes, floods, cyclones, wildfires sorted by severity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max events 1-50 (default: 20) | |
| country | No | Filter by country name (optional) | |
| severity | No | Filter severity: Red, Orange, Green | |
| event_type | No | Filter by type: EQ (earthquake), FL (flood), TC (cyclone), VO (volcano), WF (wildfire) — empty for all |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Live' and 'sorted by severity' but omits critical traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or behavior when no events match.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the key purpose. Every word adds value 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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides a high-level overview but does not explain the return format, pagination, or error states, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
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, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 returns live natural catastrophe alerts from GDACS, listing event types and mentioning sorting by severity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like earthquake_risk or weather_risk, which may have overlapping functionality.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
risk_scoreAInspect
Combined location risk score (0-100) for underwriting: earthquake + weather/storm + NatCat proximity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | No | Latitude (alternative to location) | |
| location | No | City or address e.g. 'Tokyo', 'Hamburg', 'Los Angeles' | |
| longitude | No | Longitude (alternative to location) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only explains what the tool computes. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or possible side effects like quota usage.
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?
Single sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with purpose. Highly concise with no redundancy.
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?
Explains return value (combined risk score 0-100) and components, which compensates for missing output schema. Does not clarify constraints like requiring exactly one of latitude/longitude or location, but overall adequate for a simple 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context about the output range and risk components, providing meaning beyond parameter names and types.
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?
Clearly states it computes a combined risk score (0-100) from earthquake, weather/storm, and NatCat proximity for underwriting. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like earthquake_risk, weather_risk, and natcat_history.
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?
Mentions 'for underwriting' and lists the risk components, implying when to use this combined tool instead of individual risk tools. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternatives listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
solvency_checkBInspect
Solvency II compliance news and GLEIF registration status for an insurer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language: de or en (default: de) | |
| company | No | Insurance company name (optional — omit for general Solvency II news) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It merely states the tool provides news and status, which is insufficient for a mutation-ambiguous tool.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return format or how parameters interact. For a tool with two optional parameters and many siblings, more context would improve agent decision-making.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by clarifying that 'company' is optional and omitting it yields general Solvency II news, which is not obvious from schema alone.
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?
Description clearly states the tool provides Solvency II compliance news and GLEIF registration status for an insurer, distinguishing it from siblings like insurance_news and insurance_regulation. However, it does not specify whether the output is a list or single entry.
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 such as insurance_news or claim_news. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
weather_riskAInspect
7-day weather risk assessment for any location. Returns storm, flood, and wind risk with insurance recommendations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | No | Latitude (alternative to location) | |
| location | No | City or address e.g. 'Hamburg', 'Munich' | |
| longitude | No | Longitude (alternative to location) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool returns risk assessments and insurance recommendations, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs. Every word is meaningful, and it is appropriately front-loaded.
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 explains return values (storm, flood, wind risks, insurance recommendations). It covers the main functionality but could include more detail on parameter relationships (e.g., location vs lat/lon alternatives) and potential limitations.
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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating that it works 'for any location'. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional parameter insights are provided.
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 it provides a 7-day weather risk assessment for any location, specifying the risks (storm, flood, wind) and that it includes insurance recommendations. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like earthquake_risk or general risk_score.
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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as earthquake_risk or risk_score. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
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!