Skip to main content
Glama

llmsmap.me International Directory

Server Details

Read-only search and discovery for the international llms.txt directory maintained by llmsmap.me.

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

2 tools
list_catalogBInspect

Get approved sites in the llmsmap.ru catalog with llms.txt URLs, token counts, and metadata.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of sites to return, capped at 50.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of sites to return, capped at 50.
queryYesSearch term (product name or part of URL).

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

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'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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • First observedlist_catalog
    • First observedsearch_catalog

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

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

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Live, ranked search across any number of llms.txt documentation sites - Strands, Kiro, the AWS guides, and whatever you add at runtime.
    7
    56
    MIT
  • A
    license
    B
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Provides read-only hybrid RAG search and discovery over a local-first AI knowledge corpus, enabling semantic and keyword search, browse, digest, and status tools.
    4
    PolyForm Noncommercial 1.0.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables 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.
    6
    5
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables 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
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources