Ferritin — Rust documentation
Server Details
Search and read Rust documentation for the standard library and any crate on crates.io
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- jbr/ferritin
- GitHub Stars
- 33
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 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: 'get' retrieves documentation for a specific item by path, while 'search' finds items by name or documentation. There is no overlap.
Both tool names are short, consistent verbs ('get', 'search') that clearly describe their actions, following a predictable pattern.
With only 2 tools, the count is slightly low but reasonable for a focused documentation server that covers the two main actions: fetching specific items and searching.
The tool set covers essential actions (retrieve and search), but lacks operations like listing all items or browsing related documentation, which may be expected for a full documentation server.
Available Tools
2 toolsgetBInspect
Show documentation for a Rust item by path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Item path, e.g. `serde::Deserialize` or `std::vec::Vec`. A crate segment may carry an `@`-suffixed semver requirement (not an exact version): `tokio@1::runtime::Runtime` serves the newest 1.x, while `tokio@=1.40` pins an exact release. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It is too brief, missing details about side effects, return format, or errors. The tool is likely read-only but this is not stated.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it could include more context without being verbose.
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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the result (e.g., documentation text) or error conditions, and provides no usage guidance relative to the sibling.
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% and the parameter description is detailed. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
The description clearly states the tool shows documentation for a Rust item by path, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search' which likely does not require a full path.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search'. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchAInspect
Search for items within a single crate by name or documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| crate | Yes | Crate to search, optionally with an `@`-suffixed semver requirement (not an exact version): `serde`, `tokio@1` (newest 1.x), or `tokio@=1.40` to pin an exact release. | |
| query | Yes | Search query — one or more words matched against item names and prose. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination, case sensitivity, or performance characteristics, which are important for a search tool.
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?
Single sentence with verb and resource front-loaded; 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?
The description is adequate but lacks details about return format, pagination, or result limits, which would be helpful given the lack of output 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The tool description adds only minimal context ('within a single crate') that is already implied by the parameter 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 the tool searches for items within a single crate, distinguishing it from the sibling 'get' tool which likely retrieves specific items.
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 use for finding items by query name or documentation within a crate, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide comparisons with the sibling tool.
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!