RocketRide
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROCKETRIDE_URI | Yes | RocketRide engine URL (e.g. https://eaas-dev.rocketride.ai) | |
| ROCKETRIDE_AUTH | Yes | API key for RocketRide authentication |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| RocketRide_Document_ProcessorC | Convenience tool: RocketRide Document Processor |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The tool has a single, distinct purpose, making disambiguation trivial.
Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name follows a clear pattern, and there are no other tools to compare it against for inconsistency.
A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and may indicate an incomplete or overly narrow scope. For a server named 'RocketRide', which suggests broader capabilities, one tool feels insufficient.
With only one tool, the surface is severely incomplete. It's impossible to assess coverage for any meaningful domain, and the tool's vague description ('Convenience tool') offers no insight into what operations it supports, suggesting major gaps.