F
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceRoutes code generation tasks between local models and Claude Cloud, optimizing cost by handling simple tasks locally and reserving cloud thinking for complex tasks.
-
Local Model Suitability MCP
Server Details
Check if a task runs locally vs cloud. Save money on calls that don't need cloud inference.
Ownership verified
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- OjasKord/local-model-suitability-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- local-model-suitability-mcp
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_local_viabilityAInspect
Checks whether a task can be handled by a local model instead of a cloud API. Call this BEFORE your agent routes any task to a cloud model — at the moment a task is ready to be sent and the model has not yet been selected. Use this when your agent is about to make a cloud inference call and wants to determine whether a local model could handle it at lower cost. Returns LOCAL/CLOUD/EITHER verdict with recommended model. If verdict is LOCAL, skip the cloud call entirely — saves cost on every routable inference call. Pass data_sensitivity=CONFIDENTIAL to force LOCAL verdict for tasks that must not leave the machine. Do not route to cloud without checking local viability first.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | The exact task you are about to send to a cloud model. Be specific — include what the input is and what output you need. | |
| data_sensitivity | No | CONFIDENTIAL forces LOCAL verdict regardless of task complexity — data must not leave the machine. Defaults to PUBLIC. | |
| quality_threshold | No | PRODUCTION = output quality matters and errors are costly. PROTOTYPE = approximate results acceptable. BEST_EFFORT = speed and cost trump quality. Defaults to PRODUCTION. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | |
| verdict | Yes | |
| checked_at | Yes | |
| confidence | Yes | |
| _disclaimer | Yes | |
| analysis_type | No | |
| data_sensitivity | No | |
| estimated_cost_saving | No | |
| cloud_justified_reason | No | Non-null only when verdict is CLOUD |
| task_quality_threshold | No | |
| recommended_local_models | No | Present when verdict is LOCAL or EITHER |
| data_sensitivity_override | No | Present only when data_sensitivity=CONFIDENTIAL forced a LOCAL verdict |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple summary by explaining the return format (LOCAL/CLOUD/EITHER verdict with recommended model), the side effect of a LOCAL verdict (skip the cloud call entirely), and the special behavior of the data_sensitivity parameter (CONFIDENTIAL forces LOCAL). This is rich, actionable context that fully informs the agent of the tool's runtime 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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every sentence adds value: it states the purpose, the optimal calling time, the return type, the cost-saving action, and the force mechanism. The only minor redundancy is the two sentences about calling 'BEFORE' routing, but this emphasis is arguably intentional to prevent misuse. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 the tool has no sibling tools and a comprehensive output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to call it, what it returns, how to force LOCAL, and the general rule to always check. The output schema handles return structure, while the description supplies the surrounding context. Nothing is left ambiguous.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema: the data_sensitivity behavior (CONFIDENTIAL forces LOCAL) is already fully described in the schema, and the task and quality_threshold parameters are likewise already well-documented. No additional guidance is needed, but also none is provided, so it stays at baseline.
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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Checks whether a task can be handled by a local model instead of a cloud API.' This distinguishes it from the alternative (cloud routing) and states the tool's core function unambiguously. It also names the exact output ('LOCAL/CLOUD/EITHER verdict with recommended model'), leaving no doubt about its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit, imperative guidance: 'Call this BEFORE your agent routes any task to a cloud model' and 'Do not route to cloud without checking local viability first.' It also specifies the precise moment to invoke the tool ('at the moment a task is ready to be sent and the model has not yet been selected') and the rationale (cost savings). This leaves no ambiguity about when to use it.
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 tool update
- Changed
check_local_viability1 field changed- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "additionalProperties": true, + "properties": { + "_disclaimer": { + "type": "string" + }, + "analysis_type": { + "type": "string" + }, + "checked_at": { + "format": "date-time", + "type": "string" + }, + "cloud_justified_reason": { + "description": "Non-null only when verdict is CLOUD", + "type": [ + "string", + "null" + ] + }, + "confidence": { + "enum": [ + "HIGH", + "MEDIUM", + "LOW" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "data_sensitivity": { + "enum": [ + "PUBLIC", + "INTERNAL", + "CONFIDENTIAL" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "data_sensitivity_override": { + "description": "Present only when data_sensitivity=CONFIDENTIAL forced a LOCAL verdict", + "type": "boolean" + }, + "estimated_cost_saving": { + "type": "string" + }, + "reason": { + "type": "string" + }, + "recommended_local_models": { + "description": "Present when verdict is LOCAL or EITHER", + "items": { + "type": "string" + }, + "type": "array" + }, + "task_quality_threshold": { + "enum": [ + "PRODUCTION", + "PROTOTYPE", + "BEST_EFFORT" + ], + "type": "string" + }, + "verdict": { + "enum": [ + "LOCAL", + "CLOUD", + "EITHER" + ], + "type": "string" + } + }, + "required": [ + "verdict", + "confidence", + "reason", + "checked_at", + "_disclaimer" + ], + "type": "object" +}
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
Decision-only prompt routing and firewall checks for local/cloud routing, PII and jailbreak risk.
Sentiment, toxicity, entity extraction, PII, translation, summary, QA, fraud scoring, safety audit.
Deterministic trust gate for AI output: leaked-secret, prompt-injection & PII in one call.
Intent execution engine for autonomous agent task routing
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceOptimizes token costs by intelligently delegating low-complexity tasks to local LLMs via LiteLLM, enabling cost-effective development workflows.31MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceOffloads cheap work from cloud LLM agents to a local Ollama model, reducing costs and keeping frontier models focused on complex tasks.83MIT
- FlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceRoutes commodity NLP tasks like summarization and translation to free-tier LLMs, saving Claude tokens for complex work.12-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion. The tool's purpose is clearly described with specific usage instructions and output semantics, making it unambiguous for agents.
Naming Consistency5/5
The tool name follows a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern ('check_local_viability'), which is internally consistent and descriptive. While there are no other tools to compare, the naming is clear and follows standard conventions.
Tool Count3/5
The server contains only one tool, which feels thin for a typical MCP server. However, the tool addresses a specific, narrow purpose, so it is not unreasonable, but according to the rubric, 1-2 tools is borderline.
Completeness5/5
The tool fully covers the server's stated domain of checking local model viability. It returns a clear verdict and recommendation, handles data sensitivity, and provides guidance on when to use it. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends.