Call for papers
Server Details
The verified hub for conferences and journals. Powered by AI to match your scholarly ambitions with the world's most prestigious academic opportunities.
- 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 1.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing abstracts, generating conference names, and searching for CFPs. There is no overlap in functionality, and an agent can easily tell them apart based on their specific domains.
The naming is mixed: two tools use kebab-case (analyze-abstract-tool, search-cfps-tool) and one uses a different pattern (generate-conference-names-tool). While all are descriptive, the inconsistency in formatting (e.g., 'cfps' vs. 'conference-names') and case style reduces predictability.
With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a 'Call for papers' server, which might require more operations like submitting abstracts or managing deadlines. However, it covers basic functions, so it's borderline rather than severely lacking.
There are significant gaps in the tool surface for a CFP domain. Missing are essential CRUD operations such as creating, updating, or deleting CFPs or abstracts, and there's no tool for submitting or reviewing papers, which are core to the workflow.
Available Tools
3 toolsanalyze-abstract-toolAnalyze Abstract ToolDInspect
Analyze Abstract Tool
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| abstract | No | The full text of the abstract to analyze. |
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 but offers none. It does not indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned, or any other behavioral traits.
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?
While concise with only three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description is too minimal to be helpful, failing to convey necessary information about the tool's purpose or usage.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, how it behaves, or what results to expect, leaving significant gaps for a tool that presumably performs analysis on text.
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 the single parameter 'abstract' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline score of 3 when 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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
generate-conference-names-toolGenerate Conference Names ToolDInspect
Generate Conference Names Tool
| 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 |
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 but offers no information about what the tool does, how it behaves, or what to expect from its operation. It fails to describe any behavioral traits, outputs, or constraints.
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?
While the description is extremely brief, this is due to under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single phrase 'Generate Conference Names Tool' doesn't provide meaningful information, making it inefficient rather than well-structured.
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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool generates, how results are returned, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps despite the comprehensive input schema.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema 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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 its siblings or any alternatives. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search-cfps-toolSearch Cfps ToolDInspect
Search Cfps Tool
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | The search query or keyword. |
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 but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what kind of results to expect, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral characteristics. The description is completely silent on these critical 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?
While technically concise with only three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate essential information about the tool's purpose and usage. Every word should earn its place, but this description provides almost no 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?
For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Cfps' are, what kind of search is performed, what results to expect, or how this differs from sibling tools. The description fails to provide the minimal contextual information needed for effective tool 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter 'q', which is documented as 'The search query or keyword.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the 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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 like 'analyze-abstract-tool' or 'generate-conference-names-tool'. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this search functionality.
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!