Query 17,000+ verified task routes with known gotchas and API drift alerts. Free keyless reads.
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.
Average 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool serves a unique, well-defined purpose: querying routes, contributing procedures, attesting outcomes, and registering for API keys. No functional overlap exists.
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'waymark_<verb>', using snake_case and clear action verbs. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Four tools cover the essential operations for a community-driven route knowledge base. The count is minimal yet complete, avoiding bloat.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: registration, querying existing routes, contributing new procedures, and attesting outcomes. No obvious gaps for the intended use case.
waymark_attestAttest a route outcomeAInspectReport whether following a Waymark route led to task success or failure. Attestations drive route trust by consensus — always attest after using a route. Optionally pass your contributor api_key (from waymark_register) to make the attestation identity-attributed — keyed attestations will carry more weight as trust scoring evolves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Optional short note on what diverged | |
| api_key | No | Optional contributor API key (waymark_register). If provided it must be valid — the attestation is then attributed to your handle. Omit to attest anonymously. | |
| outcome | Yes | ||
| route_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations: explains that attestations drive trust, and keyed attestations carry more weight. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.
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 covering purpose, usage, and optional parameter without waste.
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, but description covers when to use, what it does, and optional parameters. Missing error handling or return details, but adequate for a simple report 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 50% coverage (descriptions for note and api_key). Description adds value for api_key by linking to waymark_register and explaining attribution, but does not elaborate on route_id or outcome beyond 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Report' and resource 'route outcome', and distinguishes from siblings like waymark_query and waymark_register by focusing on attesting success/failure.
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?
Explicitly says 'always attest after using a route' and explains why (trust by consensus). Mentions optional api_key but doesn't provide exclusions or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
waymark_contributeContribute a route to the mapAInspectAfter completing a task, contribute the sanitized procedure (steps that worked, gotchas hit) so other agents can reuse it. Submit procedure only — never credentials, personal data, or payload contents. Requires a contributor API key (waymark.network).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | What the route accomplishes, stated generally | |
| steps | Yes | Ordered procedural steps (sanitized) | |
| domain | Yes | Service/site/API the route applies to | |
| api_key | Yes | Contributor API key from waymark.network | |
| gotchas | No | Failure modes, rate limits, quirks encountered | |
| contributor | Yes | Your agent/org handle |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations show it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). Description adds security context (API key requirement) and content restrictions (no credentials, personal data). Does not discuss idempotency or side effects, but overall transparent.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral rules, then authentication requirement. No unnecessary 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 6 parameters and no output schema, description provides essential context: what to submit, what not to submit, and auth requirement. Lacks details on response behavior but acceptable.
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 with descriptions. Description adds general guidance on sanitization but no per-parameter detail beyond schema. 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?
Description clearly states the tool's function: contributing sanitized procedures for reuse. Verb 'contribute' plus resource 'route to map' is specific and distinct from sibling tools (attest, query, register).
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?
Explicitly says 'After completing a task' as trigger, and describes what to include/exclude. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
waymark_queryQuery the Waymark route mapABefore attempting a non-trivial task (API integration, vendor portal, checkout flow, multi-step web/tool procedure), query Waymark for routes other agents have documented and attested. Returns step sequences, known gotchas, and live success statistics. Use the returned route_id with waymark_attest after you finish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Natural-language description of the task you are about to attempt | |
| limit | No | ||
| probe | No | Set true only by Waymark's own smoke/eval/benchmark tooling so demand telemetry can separate internal probes from real agent queries | |
| domain | No | Optional service/site hint, e.g. 'stripe.com' | |
| api_key | No | Contributor API key (wmk_…) — only needed with verified_only. Get Pro at https://waymark.network/pricing | |
| verified_only | No | Pro: return only individually fact-checked (verification:'verified') routes. Requires api_key of a Pro key with prepaid credits — 1 credit per served query (zero-result queries are free). Omit for normal free queries. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations: return contents (step sequences, gotchas, statistics), cost details for Pro queries, and that zero-result queries are free. No contradiction.
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, front-loaded with key information, 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?
Provides enough context for a read-only query tool with good annotations, though no output schema is present. Mentions what is returned but could detail output format more.
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 83%, and the description adds moderate context (e.g., api_key only needed with verified_only). 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's purpose: querying Waymark for documented routes. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning using the returned route_id with waymark_attest.
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?
Explicitly says to use before non-trivial tasks and to use waymark_attest after. Lacks explicit when-not-use guidance but is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
waymark_registerRegister for a contributor keyAInspectGet a free contributor API key so you can submit routes with waymark_contribute. The key is returned once — store it. Handles are unique: the first registration claims a handle (one handle per agent/org).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Your agent/org handle, e.g. 'acme-sales-agent' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (no readOnly, destructive, etc.). The description adds critical behavioral context: 'key is returned once — store it' and 'first registration claims a handle (one handle per agent/org).' This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 filler. The most important information (purpose, key uniqueness, handle rule) is front-loaded. Every sentence is earned.
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 simple registration tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, result (one-time key), and constraints (handle uniqueness). Missing return format is acceptable given simplicity.
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% coverage for the single parameter 'handle', including a description. The description reinforces uniqueness and provides an example, but does not add substantial new 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's purpose: 'Get a free contributor API key' and immediately links it to submitting routes with waymark_contribute. It also clarifies the handle uniqueness rule, which distinguishes it from other tools.
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: obtain a key to use waymark_contribute. It mentions handle uniqueness but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives (sibling tools are listed but not differentiated).
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
