Developer docs for building on RideDesk: booking API, widgets, per-account booking MCP. No auth.
One documentation topic as markdown: the booking API contract, checkout, widgets, attribution, live chat, the customer portal, or the per-account booking MCP server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | The operator's RideDesk domain (e.g. their-workspace.ridedesk.app or a custom domain). Optional — examples use a placeholder without it. | |
| topic | Yes | A topic from list_docs |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context about the return format ('as markdown') and the scope of topics, but it does not disclose error behavior, host handling, or content size expectations. This is reasonable value beyond annotations but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, output format, and topic coverage without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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-only documentation fetcher with good annotations and complete schema coverage, the description supplies the needed output format and topic list. It is slightly light on failure/edge-case behavior, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's 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%: both 'host' and 'topic' are described in the input schema, including the full enum. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 returns 'one documentation topic as markdown' and enumerates the available doc areas, making the resource and action specific. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_integration_brief or get_widget_snippets, which keeps it from a 5.
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 this is the tool to use when you need a single known documentation topic, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of list_docs, search_docs, or get_widget_snippets. The 'topic from list_docs' hint exists in the schema, but the description itself provides no workflow or exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
A self-contained brief for a coding agent building a transfer-booking website on the RideDesk API — the flow, the rules the server enforces, and the acceptance criteria.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | The operator's RideDesk domain (e.g. their-workspace.ridedesk.app or a custom domain). Optional — examples use a placeholder without it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the brief is self-contained and describing its contents, including the flow, rules, and acceptance criteria, which helps the agent know what to expect from the result.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then adds the key content details. There is no wasted wording, repetition, or unnecessary background.
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 scope-constrained, read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what this artifact is, who it is for, what it covers, and that it is self-contained. No critical guidance is missing.
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 schema already provides full 100% coverage for the single optional host parameter, including a clear example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable since the schema fully carries that burden.
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 identifies the tool as returning a specific resource: a self-contained integration brief for building a transfer-booking website on the RideDesk API. It details what the brief contains (flow, server-enforced rules, acceptance criteria), making it distinguishable from generic sibling tools like get_doc or search_docs.
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 intended use context is clear: a coding agent building a transfer-booking website on the RideDesk API. It does not explicitly contrast this with get_doc, get_widget_snippets, list_docs, or search_docs, but the description makes it obvious when this brief is the relevant resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Copy-paste tags: the attribution script, the live-chat script, and the embeddable booking/enquiry/rental widget iframes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | The operator's RideDesk domain (e.g. their-workspace.ridedesk.app or a custom domain). Optional — examples use a placeholder without it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact types of content returned (attribution script, live-chat script, embeddable iframes), making the output expected. No contradictions with 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and contents. Zero wasted words; every element contributes actionable 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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and how to use it. The simple nature means no additional behavior needs disclosure.
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 for the single 'host' parameter is 100%, with its own description explaining it's optional and uses a placeholder. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond listing the output types, so the baseline 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 copy-paste tags for specific scripts and iframes, using a specific verb ('Get') and concrete resource types. It distinguishes itself from sibling doc/search tools by focusing on embeddable widget snippets.
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 makes the use case clear: users needing attribution, live-chat, or booking widget snippets. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling names (get_doc, search_docs) imply a contrast with documentation retrieval, giving clear enough context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The available documentation topics with one-line summaries. Call first, then get_doc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| docs | Yes | Every documentation topic this server can serve. |
| note | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the tool returns topics with one-line summaries and that it is the initial step before fetching a document. This is meaningful beyond the structured 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 extremely concise: one sentence states the output, the second gives the usage sequence. Every word earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 zero parameters, a full output schema, and annotations covering read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It also sets up the expected workflow with get_doc, making the context 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The schema is empty and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter information. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameter-free tool.
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 title and description clearly indicate that this tool lists available documentation topics with summaries. It distinguishes itself from get_doc by instructing the agent to call it first, but it does not explicitly differentiate from search_docs. Overall, the purpose is unambiguous.
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 workflow guidance: 'Call first, then get_doc.' This tells the agent when to use the tool in relation to a sibling. However, it does not mention when search_docs might be preferred, so there is no comprehensive when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Keyword search across all documentation topics. Returns matching sections with excerpts; follow up with get_doc for the full topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | The operator's RideDesk domain (e.g. their-workspace.ridedesk.app or a custom domain). Optional — examples use a placeholder without it. | |
| query | Yes | Keywords, an endpoint path, or a field name (e.g. "quote_ref", "apple pay", "/api/enquiries") |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | Present only when there were no matches. |
| results | Yes | Matching sections, best first. Empty when nothing matched. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns partial sections with excerpts rather than full documents, and expects a follow-up call to get_doc for complete content.
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 tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the result shape and the recommended next step.
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-only, one-required-parameter search tool with an output schema and a named sibling for full retrieval, the description plus schema and annotations give the agent everything needed to select and invoke it 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the query and host parameters are already well described in the schema. The description reinforces that the query parameter is a keyword search but does not add new parameter-level detail.
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 a specific verb ('keyword search') and resource ('all documentation topics'), and clarifies that results are matching sections with excerpts. This clearly distinguishes it from get_doc, which retrieves the full topic.
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 explains the search-then-retrieve workflow by saying to follow up with get_doc for the full topic. It does not explicitly contrast with list_docs or the other siblings, but the intended usage is clear and supported.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
list_docs1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "docs": {
+ "description": "Every documentation topic this server can serve.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "summary": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "topic": {
+ "description": "Pass this to get_doc",
+ "enum": [
+ "overview",
+ "quote-and-book",
+ "checkout",
+ "endpoints",
+ "widgets",
+ "attribution",
+ "live-chat",
+ "customer-portal",
+ "mcp-connector"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "topic",
+ "title",
+ "summary"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "note": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "docs",
+ "note"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}search_docs1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "note": {
+ "description": "Present only when there were no matches.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "results": {
+ "description": "Matching sections, best first. Empty when nothing matched.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "excerpt": {
+ "description": "Up to 600 characters of the matching section",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "heading": {
+ "description": "The section heading the match sits under",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "topic": {
+ "description": "Pass this to get_doc for the full topic",
+ "enum": [
+ "overview",
+ "quote-and-book",
+ "checkout",
+ "endpoints",
+ "widgets",
+ "attribution",
+ "live-chat",
+ "customer-portal",
+ "mcp-connector"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "topic",
+ "heading",
+ "excerpt"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}get_docget_integration_briefget_widget_snippetslist_docssearch_docsClaiming 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, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
AI marketplace — flights, tours, activities, transport & more via MCP. No auth required.
Agent-native travel platform: read-only flight, hotel, and brand tools over MCP. OAuth sign-in.
Apideck Unified API MCP — 330 tools across 200+ SaaS connectors (accounting, CRM, HRIS, ATS).
Search, document and execute authenticated API calls across 700+ apps via one MCP server
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool clearly serves a distinct purpose: listing topics, searching docs, retrieving a topic, getting an integration brief, and fetching widget code snippets. There is no overlap; an agent can easily choose the right tool.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_docs, search_docs, get_doc, get_integration_brief, get_widget_snippets. The verbs (list, search, get) are standard and predictable.
Five tools is ideal for a documentation server, covering discovery (list, search) and retrieval (get) without excess. Each tool earns its place and the set is well-scoped.
The tool surface fully covers the domain: you can discover available topics, search across content, retrieve individual topics, and get specialized artifacts (briefs and snippets). There are no dead ends or missing necessary operations.
