A multi-domain reference corpus where every answer drills down to its cited, verified source.
Fetch one address of the publication — a record, work, party or receipt page, with its typed envelope (grade, cite, canonical). Append .json/.md/.html to pick a register; bare drills agent-markdown. Operand params ride the address (?=…&group_by=…&sum=…&limit=…).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output envelope (grade, cite, canonical), the format-selection behavior via extension suffix, and the fact that operand params are passed through the address query string. The verb 'Fetch' implies read-only; a few more side-effect or error details would elevate it.
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 deliver purpose, output shape, format switching, and query-parameter behavior with no filler. Some jargon ('typed envelope', 'drills') is dense, but the information density is high and the key purpose 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?
For a single-parameter fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential details: what to fetch, what the envelope contains, how to select serialization, and how to pass operands. A concrete address example and a clearer definition of 'register' would make it fully complete, but nothing critical 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must define the 'address' parameter. It does: an address points to a record/work/party/receipt page, can take a .json/.md/.html suffix, and accepts query parameters like facet, group_by, sum, and limit. It doesn't provide a concrete address example or enumerate valid facet names, but it gives meaningful construction semantics beyond the bare string 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 names a specific action ('Fetch') and resource ('one address of the publication — a record, work, party or receipt page'), and enumerates the returned envelope fields (grade, cite, canonical). It clearly states what drill does, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'search' tool beyond the singular-address wording.
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 clear operational guidance on how to use drill — append .json/.md/.html to select a register, or use a bare address for agent-markdown — and notes that query params ride the address. However, it never states when to choose drill over search or lists exclusions, so the usage boundary is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the drillable publication. scope is optional — omitted searches everything (the root scope); a party or work address (e.g. /make-noise or /make-noise/modules@v1) narrows. Returns addresses + where-matched + grade, or an honest abstain (logged as demand).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| scope | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (addresses + where-matched + grade), the honest abstain behavior, and the demand-logging side effect. It doesn't cover auth or rate limits, but for a search operation these are less critical.
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 dense sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and every clause adds semantic value — scope semantics, return format, and abstain behavior.
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 simple 2-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential elements: what it searches, scope options, and return contract. Minor jargon like 'drillable', 'grade', and 'demand' is left unexplained, but an agent can still invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the scope parameter (omitted = root scope; party/work address narrows) with examples, but the query parameter is not described and is left to inference by its name. Partial compensation yields a mid 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the drillable publication.' It also details the scope behavior and return values, which makes the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'drill', so it lacks full sibling distinction.
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 clear context on when to use the tool: search broadly when scope is omitted, or narrow to a party/work address when provided, with concrete examples. It does not mention when to prefer the sibling tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of full alternative routing.
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.
callcomputedescribedrill1 field changedInput schema / properties / address / descriptionRemoved value: -"A same-host path starting \"/c\" or \"/x\" (no scheme, no host, no \"..\"), e.g. \"/c/eurorack?q=reverb\" or \"/x/eurorack/drills/cover?have=…&targets=…\"."enumeratelookupnotify_when_heldsearch3 fields changedInput schema / properties / domainRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional: restrict to one domain.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / query / descriptionRemoved value: -"What to search for."Input schema / properties / scopeAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}verifyClaiming 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-verified knowledge base with trust scoring, temporal facts, and skill cards.
Citable retrieval across papers, books, patents, Wikipedia, and live social sources.
AI research grounded in 300M scientific works — every citation a verifiable DOI.
Cite the claim, not the paper: 5,033 assertions, each hash-verifiable against its source PDF
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Drill and search have clearly distinct roles: drill retrieves a specific address/resource, while search discovers addresses by querying the publication. There is no meaningful overlap between the two operations.
Both tool names are single, lowercase imperative verbs that follow a consistent and predictable pattern. The naming matches the server's drillable-publication concept well.
Two tools is slightly below the typical range, but each tool is broad and earns its place in a focused read-only publication server. The surface feels a little thin, but not unreasonably so.
Within the apparent read-only domain, drill and search cover the essential operations: retrieving a known address and discovering addresses via search. No obvious dead ends or missing core capabilities are evident.
