Read-only discovery and bounded access to a finite market briefing with evidence boundaries.
Check that this endpoint responds with product.health.v1 metadata: product, API/MCP versions, deployed source SHA when available, and checked_at. Use for connection and version diagnosis; it does not fetch the editorial feed or prove source freshness. Public and read-only; no credentials or arguments. Use list_capabilities for supported surfaces and content limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: it is public, requires no credentials, and reports version/deployment metadata. It also sets expectations by stating it does not prove source freshness, which prevents over-interpretation of the health status.
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?
Four short, purposeful sentences front-load the core behavior and return content, then cover usage, limitations, and alternatives. No sentence is wasted or redundant with the annotations.
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 zero-argument read-only health check, the description fully covers what the tool returns, when to use it, what it does not do, and where to go for related capabilities. Even without an output schema, the key response fields are enumerated.
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?
The input schema is empty and additional properties are disallowed, so there are no parameters to document. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'no credentials or arguments,' which removes any ambiguity about hidden or required inputs.
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 a specific verb and resource: checking that the health endpoint returns product.health.v1 metadata. It also lists the exact fields returned and differentiates itself from feed-fetching tools, so an agent can identify its purpose immediately.
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?
Explicitly says to use it for connection and version diagnosis, and clarifies what it does not do—fetch the editorial feed or prove source freshness. It also names list_capabilities as the alternative for supported surfaces and content limits, giving clear routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve one published story using its exact stable ID from latest_stories or search_stories. Returns story, feed receipt, and release identity while retaining canonical sources, evidence clocks, publication state, release IDs, and limitations. Matching is exact and case-sensitive; an unknown ID returns a tool error. Public and read-only; no credentials. The canonical feed is cached for up to 60 seconds; unavailable or invalid feeds return a tool error. Use search_stories first when you only know a title or topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Exact stable story id copied from a list/search result, including its prefix; not a title or URL. Case-sensitive, nonblank, without surrounding whitespace, at most 256 characters. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | |
| story | Yes | |
| schema | Yes | |
| release | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by adding concrete behavioral details: exact case-sensitive matching, unknown IDs returning a tool error, public/no-credentials access, 60-second feed caching, and errors for unavailable or invalid feeds. This goes well beyond the annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is reasonably compact. Most sentences earn their place, though the phrase about 'canonical sources, evidence clocks, publication state, release IDs, and limitations' is dense and somewhat jargon-heavy for a one-parameter retrieval tool, especially since an output schema is already present.
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 simple one-parameter read-only retrieval tool, the description is complete: it explains the ID provenance, exact matching, error behavior, caching, credentials, and how to route to search_stories when necessary. Since an output schema is present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields in more detail.
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?
The input schema already documents the id parameter thoroughly, including exactness, prefix, case-sensitivity, whitespace, and length constraints, so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the exact-match behavior and mentions the unknown-ID error case, but it does not add substantial new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('one published story'), and the exact identifier type ('exact stable ID'). It also distinguishes itself from search_stories by emphasizing direct retrieval by ID rather than topic/title search, so an agent can clearly tell them apart.
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?
The description explicitly says to 'Use search_stories first when you only know a title or topic,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also clarifies that unknown IDs return a tool error, which guides the agent to avoid calling get_story with approximate or unverified identifiers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read recent published archive records when you want a chronological overview without a search term. Returns count, stories, the feed receipt, and release identity; each story retains sources, evidence clocks, publication state, release IDs, and limitations. Public and read-only; no credentials. Lists default to 10 records, at most 20, without pagination. The canonical feed is cached for up to 60 seconds; unavailable or invalid feeds return a tool error. Use search_stories for text matching or get_story for an exact returned ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum records to return, newest first; 1–20, default 10. There is no pagination parameter. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | Canonical feed URL, content hash, item count, publication authority, and retrieval timestamp. |
| count | Yes | Number of records returned, not the total number of matches. |
| schema | Yes | |
| release | Yes | MCP version and deployed source SHA, when available. |
| stories | Yes | Newest-first published records retaining stable IDs, source links, evidence clocks, publication state, release IDs, and limitations. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: public access with no credentials, default/maximum limits, no pagination, 60-second caching, and error behavior for unavailable or invalid feeds. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 dense but every sentence carries information: primary purpose, return contents, access model, limits, caching, error behavior, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core usage and does not waste words.
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?
Given the single optional parameter, rich annotations, output schema, and sibling tooling, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: input limits, output contents, safety profile, error cases, and when to choose a different tool. Nothing important is missing.
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?
The only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the schema with default, minimum, maximum, and no-pagination semantics. The description repeats the default/maximum behavior without adding substantial new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('recent published archive records'), and a clear use case ('chronological overview without a search term'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_stories and get_story as alternatives for other needs.
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?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this when you want chronology without a search term. It also names search_stories for text matching and get_story for exact IDs, which clearly routes an agent away from this tool when those conditions apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Discover available product features, API/MCP URLs, versions, content limits, and interpretation boundaries before choosing a content tool. Returns product.capabilities.v1 metadata, without fetching stories or checking upstream freshness. Public and read-only; no credentials or arguments. Use latest_stories for recent records or get_health for endpoint compatibility. The mobile app distribution channel remains separately suspended.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it is public, requires no credentials or arguments, returns metadata only, and does not fetch stories or check upstream freshness. The separate mobile app suspension note also discloses an important scope limitation. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, return type and exclusions, authentication/argument requirements, and sibling routing. The most important usage context is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.
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 zero-argument, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, what is intentionally not performed, access constraints, and which sibling tools cover adjacent use cases. An agent has enough context to decide to call it and interpret its result safely.
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?
There are no parameters and the schema already documents this with additionalProperties false. The description reinforces this by stating 'no credentials or arguments,' which is a useful confirmation, but the schema already carries the full semantics.
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 and resource: 'Discover available product features, API/MCP URLs, versions, content limits, and interpretation boundaries.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from content-fetching siblings by stating it returns product.capabilities.v1 metadata 'without fetching stories or checking upstream freshness.'
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?
Explicit guidance is provided: use this tool 'before choosing a content tool,' and alternatives are named directly—'Use latest_stories for recent records or get_health for endpoint compatibility.' This tells an agent exactly when this tool is appropriate and when to route elsewhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find published archive records by text when you do not know an exact story ID. All space-separated terms must match as case-insensitive substrings across IDs, titles, summaries, tags, products, beats, evidence status, contributions, or source labels/release IDs. Returns newest-first stories, normalized query, count, feed receipt, and release identity, preserving evidence clocks and limitations. No relevance ranking or pagination; zero matches returns an empty list. Public and read-only; no credentials. The feed is cached for up to 60 seconds; invalid queries or unavailable/invalid feeds return a tool error. Use get_story for an exact ID or latest_stories for an unfiltered overview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum matching records to return, newest first; 1–20, default 10. Does not change which terms must match. | |
| query | Yes | Plain text, for example "dollar funding" or a source release ID. Unicode NFKC-normalized, trimmed, and whitespace-collapsed; every term must match. At most 12 terms, 160 characters, and 512 UTF-8 bytes after normalization. No quote, Boolean, regex, or semantic-search syntax. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| feed | Yes | Canonical feed URL, content hash, item count, publication authority, and retrieval timestamp. |
| count | Yes | Number of records returned, not the total number of matches. |
| query | Yes | The Unicode-normalized query with leading/trailing whitespace removed and internal whitespace collapsed. |
| schema | Yes | |
| release | Yes | MCP version and deployed source SHA, when available. |
| stories | Yes | Newest-first published records retaining stable IDs, source links, evidence clocks, publication state, release IDs, and limitations. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: public/no-credentials access, 60-second feed caching, error on invalid queries or unavailable feeds, newest-first ordering, and preservation of evidence clocks and limitations. It also explicitly states the absence of relevance ranking and pagination. No contradiction with annotations.
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 dense but every sentence earns its place: matching semantics, result shape, behavior on empty/error cases, caching, and routing to siblings are all covered without filler. The primary action and trigger are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by operational details an agent needs before calling.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the annotations, and the output schema, the description is complete: it covers when to use it, what inputs mean, what outputs include, failure modes, caching, and alternatives. An agent has everything necessary to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description still adds valuable parameter semantics: it defines how query terms are interpreted (case-insensitive substrings, space-separated, all must match), the fields searched, normalization behavior, term/character/byte limits, and absence of quote/Boolean/regex syntax. It also clarifies that limit only caps results and does not change matching behavior.
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 and resource: 'Find published archive records by text' and explicitly states the trigger condition 'when you do not know an exact story ID.' It also names sibling tools for contrast (get_story, latest_stories), so an agent can distinguish this tool from alternatives without inspecting their schemas.
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?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: text search when the exact ID is unknown. It also names alternatives directly: 'Use get_story for an exact ID or latest_stories for an unfiltered overview.' It further notes no pagination and the empty-list behavior for zero matches, making invocation expectations clear.
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.
get_story1 field changedInput schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"Exact stable story id copied from a list/search result, including its prefix; not a title or URL. Case-sensitive, nonblank, without surrounding whitespace, at most 256 characters."latest_stories6 fields changedInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum records to return, newest first; 1–20, default 10. There is no pagination parameter."Output schema / descriptionAdded value: +"Published archive records with a feed receipt and deployed MCP release identity. Evidence dates describe the source record; fetched_at describes retrieval, not market freshness."Output schema / properties / count / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of records returned, not the total number of matches."Output schema / properties / feed / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical feed URL, content hash, item count, publication authority, and retrieval timestamp."Output schema / properties / release / descriptionAdded value: +"MCP version and deployed source SHA, when available."Output schema / properties / stories / descriptionAdded value: +"Newest-first published records retaining stable IDs, source links, evidence clocks, publication state, release IDs, and limitations."search_stories8 fields changedInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum matching records to return, newest first; 1–20, default 10. Does not change which terms must match."Input schema / properties / query / descriptionAdded value: +"Plain text, for example \"dollar funding\" or a source release ID. Unicode NFKC-normalized, trimmed, and whitespace-collapsed; every term must match. At most 12 terms, 160 characters, and 512 UTF-8 bytes after normalization. No quote, Boolean, regex, or semantic-search syntax."Output schema / descriptionAdded value: +"Published archive records with a feed receipt and deployed MCP release identity. Evidence dates describe the source record; fetched_at describes retrieval, not market freshness."Output schema / properties / count / descriptionAdded value: +"Number of records returned, not the total number of matches."Output schema / properties / feed / descriptionAdded value: +"Canonical feed URL, content hash, item count, publication authority, and retrieval timestamp."Output schema / properties / query / descriptionAdded value: +"The Unicode-normalized query with leading/trailing whitespace removed and internal whitespace collapsed."Output schema / properties / release / descriptionAdded value: +"MCP version and deployed source SHA, when available."Output schema / properties / stories / descriptionAdded value: +"Newest-first published records retaining stable IDs, source links, evidence clocks, publication state, release IDs, and limitations."get_storylatest_storiessearch_storiesget_healthlist_capabilitiesClaiming 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!
Read-only discovery for a finite, offline-capable market briefing with explicit evidence boundaries.
Read-only paper risk evidence and policy-gated committed event research. No real orders.
Read bounded illicit-economy evidence with provenance, privacy, availability, and federation intact.
Read-only public financial evidence from LiquiLens, Undertow, Seiche and Palimpsest.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool occupies a clear role: health and capabilities are metadata endpoints, while latest_stories/search_stories/get_story are distinct retrieval modes (chronological, query-based, exact-ID). Descriptions explicitly cross-reference which tool to use, minimizing confusion.
Most names follow verb_noun conventions (get_health, get_story, list_capabilities, search_stories). latest_stories is the only outlier, using an adjective-led noun phrase instead of a verb, but it still reads naturally alongside the others.
Five tools is well-scoped for a read-only editorial discovery server: two metadata/health tools and three story-retrieval modes. No tool feels redundant, and the surface is small enough for an agent to understand quickly.
The read-only domain is well covered: exact retrieval, latest listing, text search, capabilities, and health. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of pagination for latest_stories and no way to enumerate older stories without a search term, but these are workable limitations rather than dead ends.