A
licenseB
qualityC
maintenanceEnables users to describe their LLM fine-tuning job once and get the cheapest, fastest, and most balanced GPU options across a dozen cloud providers in seconds.
7
101
MIT
FastGPU
by co.fastgpu
Server Details
Compare live GPU cloud rental prices and match workloads to the cheapest provider.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
2 toolslist_gpu_pricesList cheapest GPU pricesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
One entry per GPU model with the current cheapest live rental price across the whole market (RunPod, Vast.ai, Lambda, hyperscalers and more). No key required. Use this to compare GPU prices.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Filter by tier. | |
| vendor | No | Filter by GPU vendor. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| gpus | Yes | |
| count | Yes | |
| stale | No | |
| updated_at | No |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description meaningfully adds behavioral context: results are live rental prices, there is one entry per GPU model, and no authentication key is required. These details help the agent predict behavior and call prerequisites without contradicting the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core behavior and market scope, then adds auth and usage guidance. Every clause contributes actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only list tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential operational details: market coverage, live pricing, per-model granularity, and auth-free access. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (tier and vendor) described in the schema itself. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but according to the baseline this is acceptable since the schema carries the semantic burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb (list), a precise resource (GPU models with current cheapest live rental price), and a well-defined market scope. It also includes an explicit usage directive ('Use this to compare GPU prices') that makes the tool's intent unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when comparing GPU prices across the market. It notes that no key is required, which lowers the barrier for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to the sibling tool match_workload, so it stops just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
match_workloadMatch a workload to the cheapest GPUARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
The routing DECISION: describe a job (a model, size, or GPU need) and get the ranked, reasoned recommendation for the cheapest place to run it across the live market, with the required VRAM, GPU count, effective $/hr, and how much cheaper it is than a hyperscaler. No key required. Results mirror the site and apply a small, disclosed partner tie-break between otherwise-equal offers (each match reports partner true/false).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spot | No | Set true to include interruptible spot capacity for a cheaper rate. | |
| task | No | What the job does. | |
| model | No | Open model name to size against, e.g. "Llama 3 70B", "Qwen 72B", "Mixtral". | |
| query | No | Plain-language job, e.g. "cheapest to serve Llama 3 70B" or "2x H100 for fine-tuning". Provide this OR a structured spec below. | |
| region | No | Restrict to a data-residency region. | |
| vram_gb | No | Rough VRAM the job needs, in GB, if you already know it. | |
| params_b | No | Model size in billions of parameters when no exact model is named. | |
| reserved | No | Set true to include reserved / committed-term capacity for a lower rate. | |
| gpu_count | No | Force a specific GPU count instead of letting the engine size it. | |
| precision | No | Numeric precision to size the model at. | |
| budget_usd_hr | No | Only recommend configs at or under this hourly budget. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| hero | No | |
| count | Yes | |
| stale | No | |
| matches | Yes | |
| workload | No | |
| updated_at | No |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond these by disclosing auth requirements ('No key required'), result provenance ('Results mirror the site'), and the crucial partner tie-break bias between otherwise-equal offers, including the partner true/false flag. This is exemplary transparent disclosure of a non-obvious behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but every clause earns its place: the purpose, the returned fields, the auth note, the source mirroring, and the tie-break disclosure. It is front-loaded with 'routing DECISION' and structured so an agent can quickly extract intent and caveats.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 5 enums, output schema present, annotations rich), the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it does, what it returns, auth, and the partner tie-break. The main gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance toward the sibling list_gpu_prices, which would make the decision space fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond mentioning 'a model, size, or GPU need' and the query-or-structured-spec pattern, which is also present in the query parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('match'), a resource ('a workload to the cheapest GPU'), and a precise outcome ('ranked, reasoned recommendation' across the 'live market'). It clearly differentiates this from the sibling list_gpu_prices by framing it as a decision/routing tool rather than a price list, even without an explicit sibling mention.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: the agent should call this when it has a job to route and wants a recommendation with VRAM, GPU count, and cost. However, it never explicitly references the sibling list_gpu_prices or states when to prefer raw price listing over this decision tool, leaving the alternative distinction to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
- First observed
list_gpu_prices - First observed
match_workload
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming 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 asio.github.acme/serveralso 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.jsonon 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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Live GPU rental market: 2,500+ offers across a dozen provider feeds. History, watches, limit orders.
Live GPU spot market: 1,700+ offers, 10 provider feeds. History, watches, limit orders, no fee
Live VPS, bare metal and GPU hosting prices across ~75 providers, rescraped daily.
LLM and GPU rental prices: model price lookup, GPU listings, cheapest-GPU search, price history
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables comparing and renting vGPUs from 30+ cloud providers via Shadeform API, with tools to list, filter, rent, and manage GPU instances.-
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceGlobal price benchmarking for AI inference across 2,600+ SKUs from 47 vendors. Query live pricing, market indexes, and model specs via 8 tools. Free tier available.8103MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceCompare AI inference pricing across 9 providers in real time. Routing recommendations, spend tracking, and budget alerts for AI agents.119MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: list_gpu_prices provides raw market data, while match_workload turns a workload description into a recommendation. There is no functional overlap between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: list_gpu_prices and match_workload. The naming is consistent, descriptive, and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
Two tools is on the thin side, but each tool earns its place for the server's narrow price-comparison and workload-matching purpose. The count feels minimal rather than excessive, so it lands in the borderline range.
Completeness5/5
For the stated purpose of comparing GPU prices and recommending the best match for a workload, the surface is complete: one tool exposes the live market, and the other provides the routed decision. No obvious dead ends or missing critical operations.