Search, preview, install community Codex pet packs, and discover the pet request flow.
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 4.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with explicit guidance on when to use it and references to alternatives, eliminating ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_ or search_ + specific noun), making the pattern predictable.
7 tools cover the server's read-only retrieval scope perfectly without excess or deficiency.
The tool set fully covers the domain of retrieving approved pet information and understanding the request process, with no gaps for its stated read-only purpose.
get_badge_codeGet README badge codeAUse for a known approved pet slug when the user needs README badge Markdown, HTML, or SVG URL. Do not use for animated README cards, website iframe embeds, install instructions, or pet discovery; use get_card_code, get_embed_code, get_install_instructions, or search_pets instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Exact slug of an approved public Codex pet. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds that output includes Markdown, HTML, or SVG URL, which are behavioral details not covered by annotations. Could mention more about prerequisites or error handling, but sufficient given 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, front-loaded with purpose, second sentence providing exclusions and alternatives. 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, constraints (approved pet slug), and when to avoid. Complete given the tool's simplicity and rich annotations.
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 the parameter 'slug' is fully documented. The description reinforces that it must be an exact slug of an approved pet but adds no new semantic detail 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: generating README badge Markdown, HTML, or SVG URL for a known approved pet slug. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives for other use cases.
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 provides when to use (known approved pet slug, need badge code) and when not to use (animated cards, iframe embeds, install instructions, pet discovery), listing specific alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_card_codeGet animated README card codeAUse for a known approved pet slug when the user needs animated README card Markdown, HTML, or GIF URL. Do not use for simple badges, website iframe embeds, install instructions, or pet discovery; use get_badge_code, get_embed_code, get_install_instructions, or search_pets instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Exact slug of an approved public Codex pet. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds context that the input must be an 'approved' pet slug and that the output includes Markdown, HTML, or GIF URL, which is useful beyond the 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, front-loaded with the core purpose and conditional usage. 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 simple tool (one parameter, rich annotations, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers input and output types. It could mention the exact format of the returned code but is complete enough for selection and invocation.
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 'slug' is well-described in the schema. The description reinforces the requirement ('known approved pet slug') but does not add significant 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: retrieving animated README card code (Markdown, HTML, or GIF URL) for a known approved pet slug. It distinguishes itself from siblings by listing specific alternative tools for other use cases.
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 explicit guidance on when to use (for a known approved pet slug needing animated README card code) and when not to use (badges, embeds, install instructions, pet discovery), with named alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_embed_codeGet website embed codeAUse for a known approved pet slug when the user needs website iframe embed HTML or an embed URL. Do not use for README badges/cards, install instructions, or pet discovery; use get_badge_code, get_card_code, get_install_instructions, or search_pets instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Exact slug of an approved public Codex pet. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description mentions 'approved public Codex pet' which adds context about authorization, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond the schema and 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 with no waste. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, providing purpose and exclusions 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description covers when to use, what it returns, and what not to use it for. No gaps given the tool's complexity.
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 required 'slug' parameter, which has a description. The description does not add extra semantic meaning 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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves website embed HTML or URL for a known approved pet slug. It uses specific verbs ('get website iframe embed HTML or an embed URL') and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_badge_code.
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 states when to use (known approved pet slug, needs embed) and when not to use (README badges/cards, install instructions, pet discovery) with named alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_install_instructionsGet install instructionsAUse for a known approved pet slug when the user wants CLI or manual install instructions. Do not use to search for pets or inspect general metadata; use search_pets or get_pet instead. This tool is read-only and does not increment install or download counters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Exact slug of an approved public Codex pet. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful context that it does not increment install/download counters, going 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?
Two sentences, no redundant information, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter, good schema, and clear description that covers purpose, usage boundaries, and behavioral traits, it is fully 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 coverage is 100% with clear description of the 'slug' parameter. The description does not add new details about the parameter, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 provides CLI or manual install instructions for a known approved pet slug, and distinguishes from sibling tools search_pets and get_pet by stating what it should not be used for.
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 states when to use (user wants install instructions for approved pet slug) and when not to use (search/inspect metadata), with named alternative tools (search_pets, get_pet).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_petGet Codex petAUse when you already have an exact approved pet slug and need the sanitized public pet card, asset URLs, page URL, and install command for that one pet. Use search_pets first when you only have a name/query or need multiple results. Do not use for focused install, badge, embed, card, or request workflow details; use the matching get_* tool instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Exact slug of an approved public Codex pet. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return types (sanitized card, asset URLs, page URL, install command), providing useful behavioral 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage condition. No wasted words; 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?
With one required parameter, rich annotations, and clear return behavior described, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Only one parameter (slug) with 100% schema coverage. Description confirms it expects an exact approved pet slug, adding no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 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 retrieves a specific pet's public card, assets, page URL, and install command using an exact approved slug. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_pets by specifying the exact slug requirement.
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 when you have an exact slug and need pet details; advises to use search_pets first for name/query or multiple results. Also warns against using for other specific get_* tools, providing clear alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_pet_request_infoGet pet request infoAUse when the user wants to request a new Codex pet or understand the public request form fields and reference image limits. Do not use to create, submit, update, or inspect private generation requests; no MCP tool exposes those operations. Use search_pets or get_pet for existing approved pets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds clarity by stating it does not create/submit/update private requests, reinforcing non-destructive behavior. 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 with no filler. The first sentence states the primary use, the second clarifies exclusions. 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 simple info-retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's scope and boundaries. Could mention return format but not essential 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema covers everything. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as description doesn't need to add parameter meaning.
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 a specific verb 'request' and resource 'pet info', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like get_pet and search_pets by focusing on request-related info.
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 specifies when to use (user wants to request a new pet or understand form fields) and when not to (create, submit, update, or inspect private requests). Mentions alternatives (search_pets, get_pet) for existing pets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_petsSearch Codex petsAUse to discover one or more approved public Codex pet packs by query, kind, tags, author, or Codex compatibility. Prefer this over get_pet when you do not already have an exact slug or need multiple candidates. Do not use for private generation requests or known-slug install/share snippets; use get_pet_request_info or a slug-specific get_* tool instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | Optional pet kind filter. Use all or omit the field to include every kind. | |
| tags | No | Optional tag filter as a comma-separated string or array. All provided tags must match. | |
| limit | No | Optional maximum result count. Defaults to 10 and is clamped to 1-60. | |
| query | No | Optional text matched against approved pet names, descriptions, tags, and authors. | |
| author | No | Optional author text matched against the public submitter name or verified public email. | |
| compatibleWith | No | Optional compatibility filter. Use codex for Codex-compatible pets; other values return no matches. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by clarifying the search only covers approved public packs and explicitly excludes private generation requests, which is valuable behavioral scope not encoded in the 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by precise routing instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 fully documented optional parameters and clear sibling routing, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and when to avoid it. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the tool's purpose is to discover matching pet packs, which the description conveys.
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 six parameters are already documented. The description restates the filter dimensions (query, kind, tags, author, compatibility) but does not add new semantic detail 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('discover') with a clearly scoped resource ('approved public Codex pet packs') and enumerates the search dimensions. It explicitly contrasts itself with get_pet, making the tool's distinct role immediately clear.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: prefer when no exact slug or when multiple candidates are needed. It also states what not to use it for and names the correct alternatives, get_pet_request_info and slug-specific get_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming 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 or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
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
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!
