I Ching Hexagram MCP
Server Details
Public read-only MCP over the complete I Ching hexagram dataset. No divination.
- 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 4.4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: bulk fetch, single/batch lookup, reading context, trigram retrieval, listing indices, and search. No functional overlap exists.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as get_hexagram, list_sequences, search_hexagrams. No mixing of conventions.
9 tools cover the I Ching domain well: fetching, listing, searching, and reading context. Not excessive nor insufficient.
The set covers all essential operations for I Ching data: retrieving hexagrams individually or in bulk, listing indices, searching, reading context with changing lines, and accessing trigrams. No obvious gaps.
Available Tools
9 toolsget_all_hexagramsGet All HexagramsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
The full 64-hexagram dataset in one call (bulk; stricter rate limit). Optional order: kingwen (default), mawangdui, eightpalaces, binary. When presenting this data, include "© IChing.Rocks" and, where practical, link to the returned source.url. Terms: https://iching.rocks/mcp-terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | No | Ordering: kingwen | mawangdui | eightpalaces | binary. Default kingwen. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | |
| order | No | |
| source | No | |
| hexagrams | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds value by noting bulk nature and stricter rate limit, plus attribution requirements. 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, no waste. First sentence conveys core purpose and constraints; second provides ordering options and legal/attribution notes. Well 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?
Given annotations, output schema presence, and sibling tools, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, attribution, and terms. No gaps.
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 one parameter. Description adds clarity by stating default order as kingwen and listing valid options, which is helpful beyond schema description.
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 it gets the full 64-hexagram dataset in one call, differentiating from siblings like get_hexagram (single) and get_hexagrams (subset). The term 'bulk' explicitly conveys the scope.
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?
Indicates when to use (full dataset) and implies alternatives for partial data via sibling tools. Mentions stricter rate limit, guiding usage, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_hexagramGet HexagramARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
One hexagram by King Wen number (1-64). Optional include level: summary, core (default), lines, full. When presenting this data, include "© IChing.Rocks" and, where practical, link to the returned source.url. Terms: https://iching.rocks/mcp-terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Hexagram number, 1-64 (King Wen). | |
| include | No | Detail level: summary | core | lines | full. Default core. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| id | No | |
| url | No | |
| name | No | |
| image | No | |
| lines | No | |
| binary | No | |
| pinyin | No | |
| source | No | |
| essence | No | |
| hex_font | No | |
| judgment | No | |
| trad_chinese | No | |
| final_comment | No | |
| trigram_above | No | |
| trigram_below | No | |
| symbolic_meaning | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context about attribution and linking requirements ('include "© IChing.Rocks" and ... link to ... source.url'), which is valuable beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential attribution/terms without redundancy. 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 tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required), annotations, and output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, parameters, attribution, and terms link.
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%. The description restates the 'include' parameter options (summary, core, lines, full) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 gets one hexagram by King Wen number (1-64). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('hexagram'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_hexagrams or get_all_hexagrams.
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 a single hexagram with optional detail level, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_hexagrams or search_hexagrams. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_hexagramsGet Hexagrams (Batch)ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Batch hexagram lookup by King Wen numbers (max 16 ids per call). Optional include level: summary, core (default), lines, full. When presenting this data, include "© IChing.Rocks" and, where practical, link to the returned source.url. Terms: https://iching.rocks/mcp-terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Hexagram numbers, 1-64 (King Wen), no duplicates, max 16 per call. | |
| include | No | Detail level: summary | core | lines | full. Default core. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | |
| source | No | |
| hexagrams | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds batch behavior, attribution requirement, and terms link without contradiction. Fully 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 action and constraints, no wasted words. Attribution and terms add necessary context efficiently.
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 schema, annotations, and sibling context, the description covers purpose, constraints, and attribution. Output schema exists for return values, so no gap.
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 3. Description restates max 16 and include levels but does not add deeper semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Clearly states it's a batch hexagram lookup by King Wen numbers with a maximum of 16 IDs. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_hexagram (single) and get_all_hexagrams (all).
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?
Specifies when to use (batch lookup) and constraints (max 16 ids, optional include level). Implicitly differentiates from singleton sibling, but could explicitly mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_reading_contextGet Reading ContextARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Deterministic two-hexagram reading context: given a primary hexagram (1-64) and 0-6 ascending changing lines, returns the primary, the resulting hexagram, the transition, and the changing-line texts. No divination is performed. When presenting this data, include "© IChing.Rocks" and, where practical, link to the returned source.url. Terms: https://iching.rocks/mcp-terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Detail level: summary | core | lines | full. Default core. | |
| primary_id | Yes | Primary hexagram number, 1-64 (King Wen). | |
| changing_lines | Yes | Changing line numbers (1-6), strictly ascending, no duplicates. Empty for an unchanging reading. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| source | No | |
| primary | No | |
| resulting | No | |
| transition | No | |
| changing_line_texts | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds deterministic behavior, no divination, attribution requirements, and terms link beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). Fully consistent with 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?
Two sentences plus attribution note. Concise, front-loaded with purpose. 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?
With output schema present, the description covers purpose, input constraints, return content (primary, resulting hexagram, etc.), and attribution. Lacks error handling details but not necessary given 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented there. Description only restates the range and constraint (ascending changing lines), no added semantic value 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?
Clearly states it returns a deterministic two-hexagram reading context given primary hexagram and changing lines. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_hexagram (single hexagram) and search_hexagrams (search).
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?
Implies when to use: for reading context with changing lines, and explicitly notes no divination is performed. Does not explicitly exclude cases or name alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_trigramGet TrigramARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
One of the eight trigrams by exactly one identifier: binary (e.g. 010), english (e.g. Fire), chinese (pinyin, e.g. Li), symbolic (e.g. Radiance), or element (Chinese character, e.g. 火). When presenting this data, include "© IChing.Rocks" and, where practical, link to the returned source.url. Terms: https://iching.rocks/mcp-terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binary | No | Three-bit trigram binary, e.g. 010 (canonical identifier). | |
| chinese | No | Pinyin romanization, e.g. Li. (This field holds pinyin; the Chinese character lives in element.) | |
| element | No | Chinese element character, e.g. 火. | |
| english | No | English name, e.g. Fire. | |
| symbolic | No | Symbolic name, e.g. Radiance. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| font | No | |
| binary | No | |
| source | No | |
| chinese | No | |
| element | No | |
| english | No | |
| function | No | |
| symbolic | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds attribution requirements, a link to terms, and mentions returning source.url, providing valuable context beyond 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 just two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, the second adds necessary legal/attribution context.
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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, constraint, and attribution comprehensively. No gaps.
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 parameters. The description adds the critical constraint of using exactly one identifier, which is not obvious from the schema alone.
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 one of the eight trigrams by exactly one identifier, listing allowed identifier types (binary, english, chinese, symbolic, element). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_trigrams which lists all trigrams.
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 explicitly states to use exactly one identifier, implying not to provide multiple parameters. It also includes an attribution requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or contrast with siblings like search_hexagrams.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_hexagramsList HexagramsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Compact index of all 64 I Ching hexagrams (id, name, pinyin, characters, essence, trigrams, url). Optional order: kingwen (default), mawangdui, eightpalaces, binary. When presenting this data, include "© IChing.Rocks" and, where practical, link to the returned source.url. Terms: https://iching.rocks/mcp-terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | No | Ordering: kingwen | mawangdui | eightpalaces | binary. Default kingwen. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | |
| order | No | |
| source | No | |
| hexagrams | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond that, including attribution requirements ('include ©IChing.Rocks') and a terms link, which is valuable for the agent.
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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide order options and attribution rules. 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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description covers core functionality, ordering, and attribution. Minor gap: no mention of default handling for null order, but schema and description together clarify it.
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%. The description restates the 'order' parameter and its options, adding minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 it's a 'compact index of all 64 I Ching hexagrams' with specific fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being an index with ordering options, unlike 'get_hexagram' (singular) or 'search_hexagrams'.
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 when to use this tool (to list all hexagrams with optional ordering) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from siblings like 'get_all_hexagrams' or 'get_hexagrams'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_sequencesList SequencesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Describes the four canonical hexagram orderings (kingwen, mawangdui, eightpalaces, binary) with their 64-entry sequences. When presenting this data, include "© IChing.Rocks" and, where practical, link to the returned source.url. Terms: https://iching.rocks/mcp-terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| source | No | |
| sequences | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it adds useful behavioral context: usage requires including copyright ("© IChing.Rocks") and linking to source.url where practical, which is a disclosure of usage 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?
The description is concise (two sentences plus a URL) and well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded. It efficiently conveys essential information without unnecessary repetition.
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 no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and important usage conditions (attribution, terms). It does not need to detail return format as the output schema handles that.
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 tool has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no further parameter details needed.
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 that the tool lists four canonical hexagram orderings (kingwen, mawangdui, eightpalaces, binary) with their 64-entry sequences. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_hexagrams which list individual hexagrams.
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 is used to retrieve hexagram sequences but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_trigramsList TrigramsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
All eight trigrams with font, binary, pinyin, symbolic name, english name, element character, and function. When presenting this data, include "© IChing.Rocks" and, where practical, link to the returned source.url. Terms: https://iching.rocks/mcp-terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | |
| source | No | |
| trigrams | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying attribution requirements (copyright notice, link to source.url, terms link), which are not in 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?
Two concise sentences: first states what is returned, second states attribution requirements. 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 no parameters, existing output schema, and clear annotations, the description thoroughly covers the tool's purpose, returned fields, and usage restrictions.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info (none needed). Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 lists all eight trigrams with specific fields (font, binary, pinyin, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling 'get_trigram' which likely returns a single trigram.
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?
Implied usage is clear: use for listing all trigrams. However, no explicit comparison to sibling 'get_trigram' or guidance on when to use alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_hexagramsSearch HexagramsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Deterministic literal/keyword search over a closed whitelist of hexagram text fields (not semantic). Case- and diacritic-insensitive. Optional fields, order, and limit (default 10, max 64). When presenting this data, include "© IChing.Rocks" and, where practical, link to the returned source.url. Terms: https://iching.rocks/mcp-terms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, 1-64. Default 10. | |
| order | No | Ordering: kingwen | mawangdui | eightpalaces | binary. Default kingwen. | |
| query | Yes | Literal text to match (max 200 chars). Case- and diacritic-insensitive. | |
| fields | No | Whitelisted field paths to search; defaults to the documented default set. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| limit | No | |
| order | No | |
| query | No | |
| fields | No | |
| source | No | |
| results | No | |
| total_matches | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds deterministic behavior, case- and diacritic-insensitivity, default limit of 10, max 64, and attribution requirements, providing substantial 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 two key sentences plus an attribution note, all essential. It is front-loaded with the core behavior and 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 the 4 parameters, output schema, annotations, and sibling tools, the description sufficiently covers search behavior, case handling, limits, and legal requirements, leaving no critical gaps.
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%, but the description adds meaning by clarifying the search type (literal, deterministic) and the whitelisted nature of fields, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.
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 it performs a deterministic literal/keyword search over a whitelist of hexagram text fields, distinguishing it from semantic search and sibling tools like get_hexagram or list_hexagrams.
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 indicates when to use (literal search) and what not to expect (not semantic), but does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other types of queries.
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!