AgenticSearch
Server Details
Trust-scored search engine for MCP servers. 1,900+ sources indexed. IETF draft published. Referenced by OWASP MCP Security Cheat Sheet. L0-L4 trust levels based on cryptographic verification.
- 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 2.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'search' queries the index while 'verify' validates specific results. No ambiguity or overlap between retrieval and validation operations.
Both tools follow an identical simple-verb naming pattern (lowercase single words). The naming convention is perfectly consistent across the minimal set.
With only 2 tools, the surface feels thin for a dedicated 'AgenticSearch' server. While the scope may be narrow, the calibration explicitly flags 1-2 tools as borderline thin for typical use cases.
The set covers basic search and verification but lacks obvious domain operations like getting specific agent details by ID, browsing categories, or managing search history. Notable gaps exist for practical agent workflows.
Available Tools
2 toolssearchCInspect
Search the trust-scored agent capability index
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| minTrust | No | ||
| maxResults | No |
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. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to specify the search algorithm (fuzzy vs exact), return format, pagination behavior, or the scale/range of trust scores.
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 7-word sentence that efficiently states the core purpose. However, given the 3 undocumented parameters and lack of annotations, this brevity represents underspecification rather than effective conciseness.
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 zero schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain query syntax, trust score ranges, or result set handling.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially succeeds. 'Search' implies the 'query' parameter is a search string, and 'trust-scored' implies 'minTrust' relates to trust thresholds, but 'maxResults' and specific parameter formats remain undocumented.
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 ('Search') and identifies a concrete resource ('trust-scored agent capability index'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from the sibling 'verify' tool.
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 the sibling 'verify' tool, nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verifyCInspect
Verify a search result
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sourceId | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Zero annotations provided, yet description fails to disclose if this is read-only validation or a destructive state change, what constitutes verification, or return value structure. Behavioral traits completely undisclosed.
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-word description eliminates waste, but extreme brevency crosses into underspecification. Front-loaded with the verb, yet lacks supporting detail required for a tool with zero annotations.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, description minimally hints at domain (search results) but omits parameter semantics, verification criteria, and side effects. Insufficient given complete lack of structured metadata.
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 0% (sourceId undocumented), but description fails to compensate—it implies the parameter references a search result but never defines sourceId's format, expected values, or relationship to search output.
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?
States the tool verifies 'search results' (linking to sibling 'search' tool) but 'verify' remains ambiguous—unclear if this validates existence, marks as confirmed, or checks authenticity. Better than tautology but lacks specificity.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to invoke this versus the 'search' sibling, nor prerequisites (e.g., must search first). No 'when-not' or alternative path mentioned.
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!