Checks the structural integrity of translated resource dictionaries against a source dictionary y...
Checks the structural integrity of translated resource dictionaries against a source dictionary you supply: missing keys, extra keys, disallowed empty strings, and exact placeholder integrity (name and, for printf_named, conversion type, matched by exact multiplicity, order-independent) under an explicitly declared placeholder syntax (double_brace {{name}} or printf_named %(name)s/%(name)d/%(name)f). Malformed placeholder syntax is reported as a per-key issue in a completed report, never silently dropped. Requests containing likely ICU MessageFormat plural/select constructs are refused outright rather than partially validated. Never translates anything and never estimates translation quality, tone, or correctness -- this is a structural integrity check only, scoped to exactly the resources you provide. Price: 0.03 USDC per completed bounded job on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| syntax | Yes | ||
| allow_empty | No | ||
| translations | Yes | ||
| source_locale | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with the description, which adds substantial non-obvious behavior: malformed placeholder syntax is never silently dropped, ICU-based requests are refused rather than partially validated, matching is order-independent with exact multiplicity, and the hard price of 0.03 USDC per bounded job informs cost-aware selection far beyond what structured fields carry.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: definition and checks, per-key error reporting, refusal behavior, scope boundaries, and cost. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the dense parentheticals (conversion types, order-independence, exact multiplicity) replace what would otherwise be ambiguous validation semantics. No redundancy despite covering a complex contract.
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 complex 5-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers input semantics, validation rules, error handling, refusal conditions, and pricing. It hints at the return contract ('reported as a per-key issue in a completed report') but never specifies the report's structure, and the expected format of source_locale is absent—both matters an agent needs for a correct first call.
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 carries the full burden, and it compensates strongly: it explains the syntax enum with concrete examples (double_brace `{{name}}`, printf_named `%(name)s`/`%(name)d`/`%(name)f`), the source-versus-translations relationship, and placeholder multiplicity semantics. However, source_locale is never mentioned and allow_empty is only implied via 'disallowed empty strings', leaving two parameters under-explained.
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 the specific verb 'Checks' plus the resource ('structural integrity of translated resource dictionaries against a source dictionary'), and enumerates the exact checks: missing keys, extra keys, disallowed empty strings, and placeholder integrity. It also disambiguates itself from other tool types by asserting 'Never translates anything and never estimates translation quality, tone, or correctness.'
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?
No sibling tools exist, so no alternatives can be named, but the description draws a clear applicability boundary: it is scoped 'to exactly the resources you provide' and refuses ICU MessageFormat plural/select constructs outright. The negative scope statements ('Never translates anything...') tell an agent when NOT to select this tool. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when...' formulation, which is the only reason it is not a 5.
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.
localization_resource_integrityClaiming 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!
Translation that never breaks structure: .srt timings, i18n key trees, PDF layout.
Audit localized tutorials and safely maintain project metadata and pronunciation rules.
Deterministic acceptance report for a supplied product catalog: validates price/currency/availabi...
Bilingual dictionary lookup and translation validation for kasahorow Fellows.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's single responsibility is clearly defined and distinct from any other potential operation.
The single tool name `localization_resource_integrity` is descriptive, uses consistent snake_case, and clearly reflects its purpose. No inconsistent patterns exist.
A single tool is below the typical 3-15 range, but it is well-suited to the server's extremely narrow purpose of structural integrity validation. The tool comprehensively covers the intended functionality.
The tool covers all relevant integrity checks for the stated domain: missing keys, extra keys, empty strings, placeholder syntax and types, and malformed placeholders. It also explicitly refuses unsupported ICU constructs, leaving no obvious gaps.
