tenzro-lifi
Server Details
Li.Fi tools over MCP: cross-chain quotes, routes, execution status, chains, tokens, balances.
- 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 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: chains, connections, gas prices, quotes, routes, status, token details, token list, and tools. No two tools overlap; descriptions are precise and unique.
All tools follow a consistent 'lifi_get_<resource>' pattern using snake_case. The prefix 'lifi_' clearly namespaces the tools, and the verb 'get' is used uniformly for data retrieval.
The 9 tools cover the essential operations for cross-chain swap information retrieval without being excessive. The scope is well-defined, and each tool serves a necessary function.
The tool set covers chain discovery, token info, connections, quote/route comparison, and status tracking—all core to cross-chain swaps. Missing is a tool to initiate the actual transaction, but that is typically handled externally via the returned transaction data.
Available Tools
9 toolslifi_get_chainsAInspect
Get all blockchain networks supported by LI.FI for cross-chain transfers and swaps. Returns chain IDs, names, native tokens, and supported bridge/exchange protocols.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return of chain IDs, names, native tokens, and protocols, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state no side effects or mention any constraints like rate 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant or unnecessary information. 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?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema (implied by context), the description appropriately covers what the tool returns (chain IDs, names, native tokens, supported protocols). It is complete for this simple list retrieval tool.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline of 4 is appropriate as no additional semantic value is required.
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 'Get' and resource 'all blockchain networks supported by LI.FI', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lifi_get_quote or lifi_get_connections which handle specific tasks. It also lists return fields.
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 such as lifi_get_tokens or lifi_get_connections. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_connectionsAInspect
Get available cross-chain connections between two chains. Optionally filter by source and destination tokens. Shows which bridges and exchanges can transfer between the specified chains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_chain | Yes | Destination chain ID (e.g. 137 for Polygon) | |
| to_token | No | Destination token address (optional, filters connections to specific token) | |
| from_chain | Yes | Source chain ID (e.g. 1 for Ethereum) | |
| from_token | No | Source token address (optional, filters connections to specific token) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the core behavior (returning connections, filtering) but doesn't disclose details like data freshness, result limits, or performance hints. The behavior is consistent with a read operation, but lacks deeper 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value: defining the tool and optional filters.
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 existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers purpose and filtering. It could mention required parameters or scope limitations, but the schema covers parameter details. Nearly 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 parameter descriptions. The description restates optional filtering without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, it provides no additional value over structured data.
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 'Get available cross-chain connections between two chains' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like lifi_get_chains (lists chains) and lifi_get_quote (fetches quotes) by focusing on connections and showing bridges/exchanges.
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 mentions optional filtering but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like lifi_get_routes or lifi_get_quote. It provides implied usage ('shows which bridges and exchanges can transfer') but lacks exclusions or context for sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_gas_pricesAInspect
Get current gas prices for LI.FI-supported chains. Optionally filter by chain IDs. Returns gas prices in native units for each chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chains | No | Comma-separated chain IDs (e.g. '1,137,42161'). Omit for all chains. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states returns gas prices in native units, which is helpful, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 filler. Front-loaded with action and result. Every sentence 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?
Given output schema documents return values and parameter is simple, description is complete enough. It explains purpose, optional filter, and output format.
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 description of 'chains' parameter. Description adds 'Optionally filter by chain IDs' which adds no new meaning beyond schema. 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get current gas prices' and resource 'LI.FI-supported chains'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like lifi_get_quote or lifi_get_chains by focusing specifically on gas prices.
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: for fetching gas prices, optionally filtered by chain. No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lifi_get_quote for estimates including gas). No 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_quoteAInspect
Get a single best quote for a cross-chain swap or bridge transfer. Returns the optimal route with estimated output, fees, execution time, and transaction data ready to sign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slippage | No | Slippage tolerance as decimal (default 0.03 = 3%) | |
| to_chain | Yes | Destination chain ID (e.g. 137 for Polygon) | |
| to_token | Yes | Destination token address | |
| from_chain | Yes | Source chain ID (e.g. 1 for Ethereum) | |
| from_token | Yes | Source token address (e.g. '0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48' for USDC) | |
| from_amount | Yes | Amount in smallest unit (wei for ETH, base units for ERC-20) | |
| from_address | Yes | Sender wallet address (0x...) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as returning transaction data ready to sign, indicating a read-only operation that does not execute the transaction. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating or discuss authorization needs, rate limits, or other behavioral 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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then list what the tool returns. Every word adds value with zero redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 complexity (cross-chain swap bridging, 7 parameters, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the tool's role among siblings, clarifies the output (optimal route with fees and execution time), and notes that transaction data is included. The presence of an output schema means detailed return fields are not needed in the description.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains all 7 parameters (6 required). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, achieving only the baseline score.
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: 'Get a single best quote for a cross-chain swap or bridge transfer.' It specifies the resource (quote), action (get), and differentiates from siblings like lifi_get_routes by emphasizing 'single best quote' and mentioning return details (estimated output, fees, execution time, transaction data).
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 retrieving a single best quote but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lifi_get_routes (which might return multiple routes). No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_routesAInspect
Get multiple route options for a cross-chain swap or bridge transfer, ranked by output amount. Use this for comparing routes across different bridges and DEXes. Returns routes with fees, estimated time, and step-by-step breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slippage | No | Slippage tolerance as decimal (default 0.03 = 3%) | |
| from_amount | Yes | Amount in smallest unit (wei for ETH, base units for ERC-20) | |
| to_chain_id | Yes | Destination chain ID | |
| from_address | Yes | Sender wallet address (0x...) | |
| from_chain_id | Yes | Source chain ID | |
| to_token_address | Yes | Destination token address | |
| from_token_address | Yes | Source token address |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns routes with fees, estimated time, and step-by-step breakdown, and ranks by output amount. No contradictions, though it omits potential error cases or idempotency hints.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. 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 tool's complexity (7 params, cross-chain), the description covers the core functionality and return content. An output schema exists, reducing the need to detail return structure. Could mention prerequisites like valid addresses, but overall adequate.
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 all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
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 function: 'Get multiple route options for a cross-chain swap or bridge transfer, ranked by output amount.' This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like lifi_get_quote (which likely returns a single quote).
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 guides usage: 'Use this for comparing routes across different bridges and DEXes.' This provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_statusAInspect
Check the status of a cross-chain transfer by transaction hash. Returns status (PENDING, DONE, FAILED, NOT_FOUND), bridge used, source/destination chain info, and amounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bridge | No | Bridge name (optional, e.g. 'stargate', 'hop', 'across') | |
| tx_hash | Yes | Transaction hash to check status for | |
| to_chain | No | Destination chain ID (optional, helps disambiguate) | |
| from_chain | No | Source chain ID (optional, helps disambiguate) |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status with possible values (PENDING, DONE, FAILED, NOT_FOUND) and other info, but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or how errors like NOT_FOUND are handled.
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 sentence that states the purpose and key return information. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous 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 a simple status check tool with an output schema (exists), the description covers inputs and core outputs. It could mention why optional parameters (bridge, chain IDs) are useful for disambiguation, but overall it is complete enough for the low 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented. The description adds value by mentioning return fields, but it does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for the inputs themselves.
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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'status of a cross-chain transfer by transaction hash', making the purpose unambiguous. It lists specific return fields, and the tool is distinct from siblings like lifi_get_chains or lifi_get_quote.
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 when you have a transaction hash but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid using this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or best practices are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_tokenAInspect
Get detailed information about a specific token on a specific chain, including address, symbol, decimals, name, and logo URI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain_id | Yes | Chain ID (e.g. 1 for Ethereum, 137 for Polygon, 42161 for Arbitrum) | |
| token_address | Yes | Token contract address (e.g. '0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48' for USDC on Ethereum). Use '0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000' for native tokens. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It only states the return fields but does not disclose any behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the token is not found or chain_id is invalid. For a data retrieval tool, more transparency is expected.
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, clear sentence that covers the essential purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Slightly more structured formatting (e.g., bullet list of return fields) could improve scanability, but it is already 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?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return structure. It mentions key return fields. For a simple get-by-token tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is fairly complete. Missing explicit mention of error handling or edge cases, but overall adequate.
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 both required parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only summarizes the purpose. Since schema already explains parameters, a 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific token on a specific chain'. It lists what fields are included (address, symbol, decimals, name, logo URI). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lifi_get_tokens (which likely lists tokens) and others that cover different endpoints.
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 when you need details for one token, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs lifi_get_tokens or other siblings. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_tokensAInspect
Get tokens available on LI.FI-supported chains. Optionally filter by chain IDs. Returns token addresses, symbols, decimals, and logos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chains | No | Comma-separated chain IDs to filter tokens (e.g. '1,137,42161'). Omit for all chains. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (addresses, symbols, decimals, logos) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or discuss side effects, rate limits, or permissions.
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-load the main purpose and optional filter, with no filler or redundant information.
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 (single optional parameter, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers the return structure and functionality. Slightly improved by noting the optional filter explicitly.
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% for the single parameter 'chains', with a clear description including example format. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level 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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('tokens'), and the scope ('on LI.FI-supported chains'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'lifi_get_token' (singular) by implying this returns a list, not a specific token.
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 mentions optional filtering by chain IDs and that omitting returns all, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'lifi_get_token' or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lifi_get_toolsAInspect
Get available bridge and DEX exchange tools integrated into LI.FI. Returns protocol names, supported chains, and tool types (bridge vs exchange).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | Underlying response payload verbatim. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states what is returned but does not mention any behavioral aspects like read-only, rate limits, or authentication needs.
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 that efficiently conveys purpose and output. 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 zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. Sibling tools provide additional context.
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; schema coverage is 100%. Description does not need to add parameter info, baseline is suitable.
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 available bridge and DEX exchange tools, listing what is returned. Distinguishes from siblings like lifi_get_chains and lifi_get_tokens.
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?
Purpose is clear but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. Implicit through naming but not stated.
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!