Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

GPT-5: GPT‑5 is OpenAI’s most advanced and unified AI model, combining fast, real-time.

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

1 tool
post_chat_completionsChat CompletionsAInspect

Creates a model response for the given chat conversation Billing per call: Credits: metered (~0 avg).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoJSON request body. Example: {"model":"GPT-5","stream":false,"messages":[{"role":"user","content":"There are ten birds in a tree. A hunter shoots one. How many are left in the tree?"}]}

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose billing/cost behavior and that the tool generates a model response, but it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, response format, streaming, or rate limits. Some transparency is present, but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The billing note is useful but awkwardly appended without a period, slightly reducing readability. No words are wasted, though formatting could be improved.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a single flexible body parameter and a helpful example, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain return values, error behavior, or usage constraints. Billing is covered, but broader operational context is thin.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'body', and the schema provides a description plus a concrete example, giving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description text adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond billing, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a model response for the given chat conversation.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and is not a tautology. Even without sibling tools to differentiate from, the action and target are unambiguous.

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 intended use is implied: this tool is for generating chat completion responses. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. With no sibling tools listed, this is acceptable but leaves usage boundaries unstated.

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.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedpost_chat_completions

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables advanced OpenAI GPT model integration with Claude through 5 specialized tools including GPT-5 reasoning, token optimization, context management, batch processing, and model comparison. Features intelligent fallback mechanisms and task-specific system prompts for enhanced AI capabilities.
    201
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides access to OpenAI's GPT-5 model with web search and advanced reasoning capabilities, enabling AI-powered search and analysis through MCP tools.
    14
    Do What The F*ck You Want To Public
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Integrates OpenAI GPT-5 capabilities into Claude Code, providing autonomous agents for complex multi-step tasks and deep code analysis via the Codex CLI. It supports features like web search, code interpretation, and persistent file operations through a streaming MCP interface.
    16
    MIT
  • F
    license
    C
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables GPT-5 inference via OpenAI API with configurable reasoning effort, verbosity levels, and optional web search integration. Supports per-call parameter overrides for flexible AI model interactions through MCP.
    1
    -
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The single tool clearly covers its intended purpose without competing alternatives.

Naming Consistency5/5

The tool name 'post_chat_completions' follows a clean verb_noun snake_case convention, matching the style expected for HTTP method and resource. Even in isolation, it is predictable and self-descriptive.

Tool Count3/5

A single tool is on the low end of the spectrum, making the server feel minimal but not unreasonable for a narrowly scoped chat completion endpoint. It could benefit from a couple of supporting tools (e.g., model listing or health check) to feel fully featured.

Completeness2/5

The server exposes only one operation with no ability to list models, retrieve request logs, or check service status. While the core generation is present, the absence of any auxiliary endpoints leaves notable gaps for real-world usage.

Resources