Get alternatives
get_alternativesFind verified MCP servers with the same capabilities as a given server, ranked by trust.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Server slug |
MCPExplorer
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'verified' and 'ranked by trust' but fails to explain verification criteria, trust ranking methodology, or any potential side effects. The read-only nature is not explicitly stated.
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?
A single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function.
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?
For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, ranking criteria, and the meaning of 'verified'. It is adequate but leaves gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with parameter 'slug' described as 'Server slug'. The description adds context by framing the parameter as identifying a 'given server' for which alternatives are sought, but beyond that it does not add significant semantic detail.
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?
Description clearly states the tool finds verified MCP servers with the same capabilities as a given server, ranked by trust. It uses specific verbs ('find', 'verified', 'ranked') and resource ('MCP servers'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_server' or 'compare_servers'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when seeking alternative servers with similar capabilities, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. Sibling tool names offer context but the description itself lacks guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: checking trust, comparing servers, generating configs, fetching records, listing capabilities or loadouts, searching, planning, and reporting. No two tools overlap in purpose; even similar verbs like 'get' and 'list' are applied to different resources.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_trust, get_server, list_capabilities). The verbs are specific and descriptive, and the nouns clearly indicate the target resource or action.
Tool Count5/5
14 tools is well-scoped for a server that indexes and evaluates MCP servers. The number is sufficient to cover core operations (retrieval, comparison, configuration, planning, reporting) without being overwhelming or redundant.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers all essential interactions: exploring servers, capabilities, loadouts, and stats; comparing and trusting; generating configs; planning toolkits; and reporting issues. The domain is fully served with no obvious missing capabilities.