llmsmap.me Directory
Server Details
Search and discover AI-ready websites from the international llms.txt directory using a read-only remote MCP server.
- 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 3.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists all catalog entries, the other searches within them. No overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_catalog, search_catalog), making them predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels sparse. While it may cover basic queries, additional tools like get_site or filter options would be expected for a directory service.
The set covers listing and searching, but lacks detail retrieval, pagination, or filtering, which are common in directory tools. Minor but noticeable gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolslist_catalogAInspect
Get approved sites in the llmsmap.me catalog with llms.txt URLs, token counts, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of sites to return, capped at 50. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns sites with metadata, but does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. The description is minimally sufficient but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose and key return fields, with 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 the simple structure (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's function and return fields. It misses details like default limit or sorting order, but is largely complete for this level of complexity.
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 for the single parameter 'limit', with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool retrieves approved sites from the llmsmap.me catalog with specific fields (URLs, token counts, metadata), distinguishing it from the sibling search_catalog by implying it returns all approved sites.
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 the tool lists all approved sites, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus search_catalog or provide guidance on alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_catalogBInspect
Search the llmsmap.me catalog by product name or URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of sites to return, capped at 50. | |
| query | Yes | Search term (product name or part of URL). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. The minimal description leaves the agent uninformed about important operational aspects.
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 one short sentence, highly concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally complete. It explains the basic search function but lacks details about output format, pagination, or behavior when no results are found.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose of the query parameter. No extra value for parameter semantics.
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 specifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('llmsmap.me catalog'), and the search criteria ('by product name or URL'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_catalog' which likely lists all items without filtering.
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 'list_catalog'. The description implies search when a specific query exists, but does not state alternatives or exclusions.
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!