Read-only compound rankings and live vendor price comparison with canonical source links.
Live offers for one published compound, one best offer per vendor, sorted by price per mg ascending (blends and unpriceable products last). Prices are integer minor units plus display strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compoundSlug | Yes | Compound slug, e.g. "retatrutide" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| offers | Yes | |
| compound | Yes | |
| compoundUrl | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, it discloses meaningful behavior: results are live, limited to one best offer per vendor, sorted by price per mg ascending, with blends and unpriceable products placed last, and prices represented as integer minor units plus display strings. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that materially helps an agent reason about results.
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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then adds sorting and price-format details that are essential for interpreting results.
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 a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description covers the key operational details: scope, offer selection, sort order, and price format. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to 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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter compoundSlug, including an example value. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the slug must refer to a published compound, 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?
Description states a specific verb-resource pair: returns live vendor offers for one published compound, with one best offer per vendor. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on per-vendor best pricing for a specific compound rather than compound details or vendor lists.
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 phrase 'for one published compound' implies the tool requires a specific compoundSlug and is used when vendor pricing offers are needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_compound, list_vendors, or search_compounds, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Full record for one published compound by slug: aliases, category, evidence tier, routes, typical protocol, half-life, status line, canonical URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Compound slug, e.g. "retatrutide" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| compound | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that only published compounds are returned and by listing the returned fields, which is beyond what the annotations alone convey.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the operation, scope, and unique lookup key, then lists the record fields. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
With one required parameter fully documented in the schema, safety and idempotency covered by annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without missing critical information.
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 schema already covers the single parameter completely with a description and example ('retatrutide'). The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming lookup by slug, so the baseline score 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 and resource: retrieving the full record of a single compound by slug. It enumerates the exact output fields, making the tool's purpose concrete and clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_compounds or vendor-listing tools.
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 makes the usage context clear: call when you have a compound slug and need the full published record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the by-slug lookup requirement and the field list imply when this tool is appropriate versus searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Every tracked vendor that is currently alive: DOSE SCORE (when reviewed), liveness status, last-verified date, trust chips, canonical review URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| vendors | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the 'currently alive' filter and the 'when reviewed' condition for DOSE SCORE, which are not inferable from annotations or the empty input schema.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the core scope—'Every tracked vendor that is currently alive'—and then lists the relevant returned fields with no filler or repetition.
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-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the entity, the filter, and the key output attributes. No prerequisites, pagination details, or alternative routing are needed to 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is complete, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details since there are none to explain.
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 states the tool lists every tracked vendor that is currently alive, and enumerates the returned attributes (DOSE SCORE, liveness status, last-verified date, trust chips, canonical review URL). The noun 'vendor' and scope 'every tracked vendor' naturally distinguish it from siblings like search_compounds and get_compound, and from best_vendors_for.
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 tells what the tool returns but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as best_vendors_for. It does not mention exclusions or conditions, so an agent receives only implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Case-insensitive search over published compound names and aliases (brand names, research codes, shorthand like "reta"). Returns the top 10 matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Name or alias fragment, e.g. "reta" or "Mounjaro" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral details: case-insensitivity, restriction to published compounds, and a top-10 result limit. It does not contradict the 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?
One well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior and includes examples without wasted words. Every element earns its place.
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 single-parameter read-only search tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers scope, matching semantics, and result limits. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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?
The schema already covers the query parameter at 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining case-insensitive matching and providing illustrative alias examples, which is helpful beyond the schema text.
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 ('search') plus resource ('published compound names and aliases') and adds concrete examples like 'reta' and 'Mounjaro'. The scope and return behavior ('top 10 matches') clearly distinguish it from siblings like get_compound.
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 clear context that this is a fuzzy, case-insensitive lookup over names and aliases, which implies use for partial-name discovery rather than exact retrieval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of 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.
best_vendors_forget_compoundlist_vendorssearch_compoundsClaiming 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!
Link compounds to protein targets, rank bioactivity, and look up drug mechanisms and indications.
Evidence-ranked supplement data: search, compare, price history, goal recs. No API key.
US Rx price comparison + foreign-brand US-equivalent lookup. Observed prices, read-only.
Read-only ammo pricing: offer search, caliber market snapshots, retailer directory. Descriptive.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: searching compounds, retrieving a full compound record, listing all vendors, and fetching vendor offers for a compound. The two compound-focused tools are clearly separated by search versus exact lookup.
Three tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_compound, list_vendors, search_compounds. The outlier is best_vendors_for, which is still readable and fits the domain but breaks the otherwise consistent pattern.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a read-only compound and vendor lookup service. Each tool provides a necessary part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core user journey: search for a compound, view its full record, check vendor offers for it, and inspect vendor credibility. Since this is a read-only lookup domain, mutation tools are not expected and no obvious gaps remain.
