D3vTools
Server Details
MCP server for 200+ developer utilities — discover and execute tools through a unified API.
- 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 3.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing tools, getting details of a specific tool, and executing a tool. No overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (execute_tool, get_tool_details, list_tools_catalog), making the naming predictable.
With 3 tools, the set is minimal but appropriate for a meta-utility server that provides discovery, specification, and execution. Could be slightly thin, but reasonable.
The server covers the full lifecycle: listing all available tools, retrieving detailed info for a specific tool, and executing a tool. No obvious gaps for its purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolsexecute_toolExecute Tool ToolCRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Execute a D3vTools tool with input and optional parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | Optional destination unit for conversion tools. | |
| from | No | Optional source unit for conversion tools. | |
| slug | Yes | Tool slug. | |
| input | No | Primary input value for the tool. | |
| value | No | Optional conversion value when using from/to. | |
| options | No | Optional structured arguments for complex tools. | |
| category | Yes | Tool category slug. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Tool output data, present on success |
| meta | No | Tool metadata, present on success |
| status | No | HTTP status code (200 on success, 422 on validation error) |
| message | No | Error message when success is false |
| success | No | Whether the tool executed successfully |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not add behavioral details beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It does not contradict them, but also does not disclose additional traits such as what happens during execution or response format.
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 short sentence, which is concise but underspecified for a tool with 7 parameters, including nested objects. It lacks front-loading of key constraints.
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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects), the description is too terse. It does not explain parameter relationships (e.g., when to use to/from vs input) or leverage the available output schema. Incomplete for effective 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value (only 'with input and optional parameters'), so 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 action 'Execute' and the resource 'D3vTools tool', and it distinguishes from sibling tools (get_tool_details, list_tools_catalog) which are for information retrieval, not execution. However, it could be more specific about what execution entails.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only mentions input and optional parameters but does not provide context or exclusion criteria for other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_tool_detailsGet Tool Details ToolBRead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get detailed API and request-parameter information for one D3vTools tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Tool slug. | |
| category | Yes | Tool category slug. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| tool | No | The tool definition, if found |
| message | No | Error message if the tool was not found |
| success | No | Whether the tool was found |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's claim of 'get' aligns. No additional behavioral detail (e.g., rate limits, response size) is added, but annotations suffice for safety and idempotency.
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 clear verb and resource. Concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from additional context without becoming 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?
For a simple read tool with two params and an output schema, the description is adequate. It could mention that the output is JSON with details, but not required given the output schema exists.
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 fully documents both 'slug' and 'category' parameters. The description adds no extra semantic 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 states the tool retrieves detailed API and request-parameter information for a single tool, which is clear and identifies the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_tools_catalog or execute_tool, but the purpose is evident.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (list_tools_catalog, execute_tool). The description provides no context for selection or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_tools_catalogList Tools Catalog ToolARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List all available D3vTools tools with categories, endpoints, and request contract hints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Optional specific tool slug filter. | |
| tier | No | Optional tier filter (free or premium). | |
| category | No | Optional category slug filter. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of tools matching the applied filters |
| tools | No | List of matching tool definitions |
| generated_at | No | ISO 8601 timestamp when the catalog was generated |
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 the scope of returned data but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that, such as pagination or limits.
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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. All information is front-loaded and concise.
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 covers the function and output content (categories, endpoints, hints). With an output schema present and optional parameters, it is fairly complete, though lacking any mention of result ordering or limits.
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 includes descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 lists available tools with categories, endpoints, and request contract hints, which is specific and distinguishes from siblings like execute_tool and get_tool_details.
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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only describes what it does, without context like 'use this to browse all tools, use get_tool_details for a single tool's full details.'
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!