llmsmap.me International Directory
Server Details
Read-only search and discovery for the international llms.txt directory maintained by llmsmap.me.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
2 toolslist_catalogBInspect
Get approved sites in the llmsmap.ru catalog with llms.txt URLs, token counts, and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of sites to return, capped at 50. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only operation and specifies return contents, but it does not disclose default result size, ordering, pagination, or the behavior when no limit is provided.
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 a single sentence with the action and resource front-loaded, and no redundant or filler wording. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose.
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 one-parameter list tool with a documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately states the resource and return contents. It could be slightly more complete by specifying default behavior and the relationship to search_catalog, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.
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 100%: the only parameter, limit, already has a description including the 50 cap. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('approved sites in the llmsmap.ru catalog'), and it lists the returned fields. It clearly implies a listing operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_catalog, which prevents a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use list_catalog versus search_catalog, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The agent can only infer from the tool name that list is for broad browsing and search is for targeted queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_catalogBInspect
Search the llmsmap.ru catalog by product name or URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of sites to return, capped at 50. | |
| query | Yes | Search term (product name or part of URL). |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to carry the burden, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the primitive action (search) without mentioning read-only status, rate limits, result formatting, or error behavior. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent without important context.
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 one concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler; every word contributes to clarifying what the tool does.
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?
The tool is simple (2 parameters, all described), but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention the return format, pagination, or any caveats. It is minimally adequate for a basic search tool but leaves the agent without expectations about the response.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by product name or URL' aligns with the query parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states. Limit is not mentioned in the description, but the schema fully describes it.
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 clearly identifies the action (search), the resource (llmsmap.ru catalog), and the search criteria (product name or URL). It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling list_catalog, but the verb 'search' implicitly contrasts with 'list', so it is more than vague.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of list_catalog. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose between the two tools. The usage is only implied by the name and description.
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.
2 tool updates
- First observed
list_catalog - First observed
search_catalog
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
Any site's llms.txt: find the covering index, read its linked docs as markdown, search sections.
Read-only search and Markdown access to liz's public docs, prompts, resources, and an MCP App.
Read-only catalogue search: JVM developer tooling, ML models, compliance APIs, siSwati LLM.
Search a curated directory of AI tools and MCP servers for law firms. Read-only, free, no auth.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceLive, ranked search across any number of llms.txt documentation sites - Strands, Kiro, the AWS guides, and whatever you add at runtime.756MIT
- AlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceProvides read-only hybrid RAG search and discovery over a local-first AI knowledge corpus, enabling semantic and keyword search, browse, digest, and status tools.4PolyForm Noncommercial 1.0.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables websites to expose a first-class interface for AI agents by providing read-only MCP tools like search_site and generating llms.txt discovery files.65MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables agents to discover the llms.txt index covering any site, fetch its linked documentation pages as markdown, and search across parsed indexes by section heading, link title, and notes.MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one lists the entire catalog, the other searches by name or URL. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily select the right tool.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'list_catalog' and 'search_catalog' use lowercase snake_case with a clear action and object. The naming is predictable and uniform.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a directory service, which typically requires more operations (e.g., get details, pagination, filtering). However, for a simple read-only catalog, the count is borderline acceptable.
The tool set covers the core operations of listing and searching a catalog, which is the stated purpose. Minor gaps include lack of a 'get_single_site' tool or explicit pagination controls, but agents can work around these with the existing tools.