A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceChecks PC component compatibility and estimates power supply requirements from user-supplied specifications, returning structured conflicts, fixes, and recommended PSU capacity.
MIT
Entyrax
by com.entyrax
Server Details
PC hardware decision engine for Brazil (pt-BR): compatibility, GPU recommendations, build analysis.
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
3 toolsanalyze_buildAnalisar build completoARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Analisa um build CPU+Mobo+GPU. Retorna overall_quality, reasoning (why_this_mobo/why_this_gpu/budget_note), PSU recomendada e preços.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpu_slug | Yes | Slug da CPU (ex: ryzen-7-7800x3d) | |
| gpu_slug | Yes | Slug da GPU (ex: geforce-rtx-5070-ti) | |
| mobo_slug | Yes | Slug da placa-mãe (ex: gigabyte-b650-aorus-pro-ax) |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| psu | No | PSU recomendada para o conjunto |
| reasoning | No | why_this_mobo, why_this_gpu, budget_note |
| overall_quality | No | Qualidade geral do build (ex: excellent, unbalanced) |
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by listing return fields (overall_quality, reasoning, PSU, prices) and confirms the tool's scope, which is consistent 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.
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 presence of annotations and full output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and outputs. Missing error handling or prerequisites, but not critical for this straightforward tool.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description reinforces that these three slugs form a build and explains what the analysis returns, but does not add new details beyond schema.
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 it analyzes a full CPU+Mobo+GPU build and returns specific outputs (overall quality, reasoning, PSU, prices). It distinguishes well from siblings like check_compatibility and recommend_gpu_by_context.
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 for analyzing a complete build but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. siblings or provide when-not scenarios. Sibling tools are listed but no comparison is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_compatibilityVerificar compatibilidadeARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Verifica compatibilidade e qualidade de pairing entre dois componentes (CPU+Mobo, CPU+GPU, GPU+Monitor). Retorna compatibility_status, pairing_quality, confidence e reasoning.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_a | Yes | Slug do primeiro componente (ex: ryzen-7-7800x3d) | |
| entity_b | Yes | Slug do segundo componente (ex: gigabyte-b650-aorus-pro-ax) | |
| pair_type | No | Tipo do par. Opcional; se omitido, tenta os três. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Justificativa em pt-BR |
| pair_type | No | cpu_mobo | cpu_gpu | gpu_monitor |
| compatible | No | Se o par funciona junto |
| confidence | No | 0.0–1.0 |
| pairing_quality | No | Ex: excellent, balanced, bottleneck_risk |
| compatibility_status | No | Ex: native_supported, needs_bios_update |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that when pair_type is omitted, the tool tries all three pair types, and explicitly lists return fields. This provides useful behavioral context beyond 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: first covers purpose and components, second lists return fields. Every word earns its place; no fluff. Front-loaded with the core function.
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 (3 params, output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is complete enough: it explains what pairs are checked, return fields, and behavior when pair_type is omitted. Missing details on error handling or quality metrics are acceptable given output schema presence.
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 baseline is 3. The description repeats that entity_a and entity_b are slugs and mentions pair types, but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the tool checks compatibility and pairing quality between two components, listing specific pair types (CPU+Mobo, CPU+GPU, GPU+Monitor) and return fields. This distinguishes it from siblings (analyze_build, recommend_gpu_by_context) which focus on full builds or recommendations.
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 implies usage for checking specific component pairs, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it. The context is clear, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recommend_gpu_by_contextRecomendar GPU por contextoARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Recomenda top GPUs dado contexto: resolução (1080p/1440p/4k), uso (gaming-aaa/gaming-competitive/produtividade) e orçamento em BRL.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| use_case | Yes | Uso principal da máquina | |
| budget_brl | Yes | Orçamento máximo em BRL (ex: 3500) | |
| resolution | Yes | Resolução alvo do monitor |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| picks | No | GPUs recomendadas em ordem de adequação |
| reasoning | No | Resumo do porquê do ranking |
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. Description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond stating it recommends GPUs. No contradiction 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundant information, front-loaded with key action and context. Every word adds value.
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?
Given output schema exists (not shown but signaled), description adequately covers the tool's purpose with three parameters. No missing context for a recommendation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by providing examples (e.g., '1080p/1440p/4k', 'gaming-aaa/gaming-competitive/produtividade') and clarifying budget format ('em BRL'), which aids the agent in parameter selection.
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?
Description clearly states verb ('Recomenda'), resource ('top GPUs'), and context parameters (resolution, use case, budget). Distinguishes from sibling tools (analyze_build, check_compatibility) by focusing on GPU recommendation.
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?
Description implies usage when needing GPU recommendations given context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or exclusions. Siblings exist but no differentiation stated.
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.
3 tool updates
- Changed
analyze_build4 fields changed- added
Input schema / properties / cpu_slug / descriptionAdded value: +"Slug da CPU (ex: ryzen-7-7800x3d)" - added
Input schema / properties / gpu_slug / descriptionAdded value: +"Slug da GPU (ex: geforce-rtx-5070-ti)" - added
Input schema / properties / mobo_slug / descriptionAdded value: +"Slug da placa-mãe (ex: gigabyte-b650-aorus-pro-ax)" - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "description": "Análise do build com veredicto e PSU recomendada.", + "properties": { + "overall_quality": { + "description": "Qualidade geral do build (ex: excellent, unbalanced)", + "type": "string" + }, + "psu": { + "description": "PSU recomendada para o conjunto", + "type": "object" + }, + "reasoning": { + "description": "why_this_mobo, why_this_gpu, budget_note", + "type": "object" + } + }, + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
check_compatibility2 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / pair_type / descriptionPrevious value: -"Opcional; se omitido, tenta os três."New value: +"Tipo do par. Opcional; se omitido, tenta os três." - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "description": "Veredicto de compatibilidade com reasoning.", + "properties": { + "compatibility_status": { + "description": "Ex: native_supported, needs_bios_update", + "type": "string" + }, + "compatible": { + "description": "Se o par funciona junto", + "type": "boolean" + }, + "confidence": { + "description": "0.0–1.0", + "type": "number" + }, + "pair_type": { + "description": "cpu_mobo | cpu_gpu | gpu_monitor", + "type": "string" + }, + "pairing_quality": { + "description": "Ex: excellent, balanced, bottleneck_risk", + "type": "string" + }, + "reason": { + "description": "Justificativa em pt-BR", + "type": "string" + } + }, + "type": "object" +}
- Changed
recommend_gpu_by_context4 fields changed- changed
Input schema / properties / budget_brl / descriptionPrevious value: -"Orçamento máximo em BRL"New value: +"Orçamento máximo em BRL (ex: 3500)" - added
Input schema / properties / resolution / descriptionAdded value: +"Resolução alvo do monitor" - added
Input schema / properties / use_case / descriptionAdded value: +"Uso principal da máquina" - changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "description": "Ranking de GPUs para o contexto, com reasoning.", + "properties": { + "picks": { + "description": "GPUs recomendadas em ordem de adequação", + "items": { + "properties": { + "avg_fps": { + "description": "FPS médio estimado no contexto", + "type": "number" + }, + "avg_price_brl": { + "description": "Preço médio em BRL", + "type": "number" + }, + "name": { + "description": "Nome da GPU", + "type": "string" + } + }, + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "reasoning": { + "description": "Resumo do porquê do ranking", + "type": "object" + } + }, + "type": "object" +}
3 tool updates
- First observed
analyze_build - First observed
check_compatibility - First observed
recommend_gpu_by_context
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
Authenticated GPU/CPU/PSU lookup; beta power-budget estimate. Coverage/freshness vary by source.
Public lookup of Brazilian court cases (metadata + docket) via the CNJ/DataJud API. Free, no login.
Busca e verifica jurisprudência brasileira real (+400 mil julgados) — anti-alucinação para IA.
Brazilian investments MCP: B3 quotes, fundamentals, portfolio X-ray, theses and news for AI agents.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to search and compare Korean PC parts prices from Danawa and Compuzone, build assembly estimates with automatic compatibility checks, and track price history.111410MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceProvides deterministic PC no-boot/no-display troubleshooting with ranked repair steps and real, sourced BIOS beep-code lookup tables. Enables users to diagnose hardware issues without LLM guesswork.21MIT
Yamaru Hardware Probeofficial
AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceExpert system hardware probe and performance diagnostic engine for AI, Gaming, and High-Performance workflows. Provides deep system insights such as real-time monitoring, thermal diagnostics, and LLM optimization.11577Apache 2.0
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: full build analysis, pairwise compatibility, and GPU recommendation. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (analyze_build, check_compatibility, recommend_gpu_by_context), making the set predictable.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools is a reasonable size for a focused PC building assistant, covering the core decision points without overcomplicating.
Completeness3/5
The set covers full build analysis and compatibility but lacks recommendations for other individual components (e.g., CPU, motherboard) and price tracking, leaving some gaps.