The verified hub for conferences and journals. Powered by AI to match your scholarly ambitions with the world's most prestigious academic opportunities.
Tools are mostly distinct: search_cfps finds CFPs, analyze_abstract checks fit, generate_conference_names creates names, get_calendar_feed provides calendar links. There is slight overlap between search_cfps and the calendar feed (both relate to deadlines) but their purposes are clearly separated enough.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: analyze_abstract, generate_conference_names, get_calendar_feed, search_cfps. The verbs are distinct and the nouns clear, making the naming pattern predictable and readable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a CFP-focused server: search, analysis, generation, and calendar integration. Each tool serves a distinct core need with no redundancy, and the count is appropriate for the domain.
The tool surface covers key workflows: finding CFPs, analyzing fit, generating names, and getting calendar subscriptions. Minor gaps include lack of tools for saving/tracking CFPs or submitting abstracts, but the core functionality for a CFP aggregator/helper is present.
Analyze a research abstract against an academic call for papers. Identify topical relevance, likely fit, mismatches, and areas that could be strengthened. Use when the user provides an abstract and asks whether it fits a CFP or conference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| abstract | No | The full text of the abstract to analyze. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analysis outputs ('topical relevance, likely fit, mismatches, areas that could be strengthened'), but does not state whether the tool has side effects, requires permissions, modifies any state, or whether input validation occurs. It provides a useful behavioral shape without full disclosure.
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 the core purpose, followed by the usage condition. No redundant phrasing or over-explanation. 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?
For a single-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the tool evaluates and what it returns conceptually, but does not specify the output format, any limits (e.g., abstract length), or present a structured response shape. It is adequate but leaves the precise return value to inference.
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% for the single parameter 'abstract', and the description does not add any detail about the parameter's meaning or format beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.
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 ('Analyze'), the resource ('a research abstract'), and target ('against an academic call for papers'), explicitly narrowing the function to abstract-vs-CFP fit. It is visually distinct from the siblings (search_cfps, generate_conference_names, get_calendar_feed) but does not name them, so it stops one step short of a full 5.
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 second sentence gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when the user provides an abstract and asks whether it fits a CFP or conference.' This is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the contextual cues and sibling names make the target use fairly obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate creative, publication-ready conference name ideas tailored to your topic and format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tone | No | The desired tone of the name. | formal |
| count | No | Number of names to generate (max 10). | |
| topic | No | Principal theme (e.g., "Machine Learning in Healthcare"). | |
| format | No | The event format. | conference |
| region | No | Geographic focus (e.g., "Asia-Pacific"). | Global |
| audience | No | Intended attendees (e.g., "Researchers"). | Researchers |
| subject_area | No | Broader discipline (e.g., "Computer Science"). | General |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the output is 'conference name ideas' but does not explain how generation works, what format the output takes, whether it uses external resources, or any constraints beyond the schema. Significant behavioral context is missing.
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 with no fluff. It effectively front-loads the core purpose. However, it is slightly too short to cover behavioral nuances, though it earns a high score for efficiency.
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?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out how results are returned (e.g., list, JSON, count) and any generation constraints. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall description is barely more than a purpose statement, making it adequate but not complete for a generative 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'topic and format,' which is already covered by the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 generates creative, publication-ready conference name ideas tailored to topic and format. The verb 'generate' plus the specific resource 'conference name ideas' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like analyze_abstract or search_cfps.
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 creating conference names but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Sibling tools are unrelated, so the intended context is reasonably inferable, but the description does not state when to prefer this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate custom live iCal calendar feed subscription links and Google/Apple/Outlook 1-click sync URLs for academic conference deadlines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search keyword or conference acronym (optional). | |
| mode | No | Event format mode (optional). | |
| country | No | Country code or name, e.g. US, United States (optional). | |
| subject | No | Subject area or discipline name/slug, e.g. computer-science, artificial-intelligence (optional). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the tool generates links/URLs but does not disclose whether it performs network calls, whether the calendar feed is live and requires server-side polling, whether authentication is needed, or whether the returned URLs expire. This is a notable gap for a tool that generates subscription links.
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 front-loads the primary action and output. It is concise and every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, though it could have added a brief example of expected output without becoming bloated.
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 4-parameter optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool produces but omits practical context such as the URL format, whether the user will receive one link or multiple links per calendar service, and whether the feed reflects future deadline changes. Given no annotations, this is adequate but not complete.
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 all four parameters already have individual descriptions in the input schema. The tool description mentions 'custom' and 'academic conference deadlines' but does not add deeper meaning beyond the schema, such as how the parameters interact to constrain the feed or whether 'q' is mutually exclusive with other filters.
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 uses specific verbs ('Generate', 'subscribe', 'sync') and names the resource (custom live iCal calendar feed subscription links and Google/Apple/Outlook sync URLs). It clearly identifies the tool's function but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as search_cfps or generate_conference_names, so it misses some sibling differentiation.
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 this tool is for creating calendar feeds for conference deadlines, so an agent can infer it should be used when the user wants to sync deadlines to a calendar. It does not state when to prefer search_cfps for finding deadlines or generate_conference_names for naming conferences, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search active academic calls for papers and research events on CallForPaper.org. Use this when the user wants to find conferences, workshops, CFPs, submission opportunities, deadlines, or academic events. Supports filtering by research subject, deadline, location, event type, and participation mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | The search query or keyword (optional). | |
| sort | No | Sort order: by nearest deadline or most recently added. | deadline_asc |
| limit | No | Number of results to retrieve (max 50). | |
| country | No | Two-letter ISO country code (optional). | |
| subject | No | Filter by category/subject tag name or slug (optional). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so description carries the burden. It mentions searching only 'active' calls and supports filtering, but does not disclose result format, pagination, or any caveats. Sufficient for a basic search tool but lacks depth.
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 concise sentences: core action, usage context, and filtering capabilities. No fluff, but last sentence partially redundant with schema. Well-structured and 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?
All parameters are optional and documented; no output schema needed for a search tool. The description covers what the tool does and when to use it. Lacks details on response shape but acceptable for this scope.
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 is already documented. The description adds that filtering is supported, but lists 'deadline, event type, and participation mode' which do not map to specific parameters (deadline only via sort, event type/participation mode absent). Baseline 3 with minor inconsistency.
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 searches active academic calls for papers and research events on CallForPaper.org. It names specific use cases (conferences, workshops, CFPs, deadlines) and is distinct from siblings like analyze_abstract or get_calendar_feed.
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?
Provides explicit context for when to use: 'Use this when the user wants to find conferences, workshops, CFPs, submission opportunities, deadlines, or academic events.' Does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but sibling names are self-explanatory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
analyze_abstractanalyze-abstract-toolgenerate_conference_namesgenerate-conference-names-toolget_calendar_feedget-calendar-feed-toolsearch_cfpssearch-cfps-toolget-calendar-feed-toolsearch-cfps-tool5 fields changedInput schema / properties / countryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Two-letter ISO country code (optional).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 10,
+ "description": "Number of results to retrieve (max 50).",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / q / descriptionPrevious value: -"The search query or keyword."New value: +"The search query or keyword (optional)."Input schema / properties / sortAdded value: +{
+ "default": "deadline_asc",
+ "description": "Sort order: by nearest deadline or most recently added.",
+ "enum": [
+ "deadline_asc",
+ "recent"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / subjectAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Filter by category/subject tag name or slug (optional).",
+ "type": "string"
+}analyze-abstract-toolgenerate-conference-names-toolsearch-cfps-toolClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity – fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge – works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge – works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
