Remote Camera
Server Details
Capture photos remotely from mobile devices via S3-backed upload URLs
- 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 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: generating an upload URL and polling for completion. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (generate_upload_url, poll_for_upload).
Two tools are minimal but appropriate for a focused service that covers the core upload workflow. A slightly larger set could include additional features.
The pair covers the essential upload cycle: generate URL and wait for upload. Missing features like cancellation or status checks are minor gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolsgenerate_upload_urlAInspect
Generate a URL for remote camera upload. Send this URL to a mobile device to capture and upload a photo. The capture URL can be reused multiple times to upload different photos without generating a new URL. The URL will be in format: https://www.ai.moda/mcp-servers/remote-camera/capture/?url=PRESIGNED_URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | Instructions/message to display to the user on the capture page (max 200 characters) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Session ID used for this upload, in UUID format |
| capture_url | Yes | Full URL to send to mobile device for photo capture |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond basic function, such as the URL's reusability ('can be reused multiple times') and format details, but lacks information on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. It does not contradict any annotations.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second explains usage and reusability, and the third provides the URL format. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 moderate complexity (generating a URL for uploads), no annotations, and an output schema present (which likely covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's function, usage, and URL format well, but could improve by addressing potential limitations or prerequisites, such as authentication needs.
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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'message'. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it does not mention parameters at all. Baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('generate a URL for remote camera upload') and resource ('URL'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'poll_for_upload' by explaining that this tool creates the upload mechanism while the sibling likely monitors for completion. It goes beyond just restating the name by detailing the URL's function and reusability.
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 on when to use this tool ('Send this URL to a mobile device to capture and upload a photo') and implies usage for remote photo capture scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the sibling tool, missing explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
poll_for_uploadAInspect
Poll S3 bucket waiting for photo upload to complete. Returns a presigned download URL when the file is ready. The same session_id can be used to poll for new uploads multiple times, allowing the capture URL to be reused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | Max seconds to wait for upload | |
| not_etag | No | Only detect files with different ETag than this value, used to poll for new uploads | |
| session_id | Yes | Session ID to poll for, in UUID format | |
| modified_since | No | Only detect files modified after this date in ISO 8601 or HTTP date format |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| etag | Yes | ETag of the uploaded file, can be used with not_etag parameter for subsequent polls |
| download_url | Yes | Presigned GET URL to download the uploaded photo, valid for 7 days |
| last_modified | No | Last modified timestamp of the uploaded file from S3 |
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 all behavioral traits. It mentions polling and URL return but does not explain side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or timeout behavior beyond the schema's parameter description. The polling mechanism (interval, blocking vs. checking) is not detailed.
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 three concise sentences, with the primary action and result stated first. No extraneous information is present; every sentence adds value.
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 presence of an output schema (implied to document return values), the description adequately covers the purpose and basic behavior. However, it lacks details on failure modes or polling intervals, which would be useful for complete understanding.
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 four parameters. The description adds contextual value by explaining the polling flow and session_id reusability, but it does not significantly augment the parameter meaning 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 tool polls an S3 bucket for photo upload completion and returns a presigned download URL. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'generate_upload_url' by specifying the waiting and URL retrieval behavior.
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 after generating an upload URL, and it notes that the same session_id can be reused for multiple polls. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or provide direct comparisons with alternatives.
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!