A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceProvides deterministic PC no-boot/no-display troubleshooting with ranked repair steps and real, sourced BIOS beep-code lookup tables. Enables users to diagnose hardware issues without LLM guesswork.
2
1
MIT
whyismy-org
Server Details
Sourced answers to everyday "why is my…" questions — health, pets, home, plumbing, tech, cars.
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
4 toolsget_articleRead a WhyIsMy.org articleARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Get the direct answer, the causes the article covers, and its FAQ for one article, by slug (from search_articles). Returns a summary, not the full text — the article URL has the complete step-by-step fix and the sources.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | Article slug, e.g. "why-is-my-phone-on-sos". | |
| query | No | Optional. If slug is unknown or wrong, the closest match to this text is returned instead. |
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context: it returns a summary, not full text, and that the article URL contains the complete step-by-step fix and sources. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences that are front-loaded and concise, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and what is not. It also points to the article URL for more details, making it complete.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that the slug is from search_articles and that the query is a fallback, but does not significantly enhance the schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states it retrieves the direct answer, causes, and FAQ for a single article by slug. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it returns a summary, not the full text, and that the slug comes from search_articles.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly mentions that the slug should come from search_articles and that an optional query can be used if the slug is unknown. It does not directly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_calculatorsFind WhyIsMy.org interactive calculatorsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Find WhyIsMy.org's free interactive calculators, checkers and estimators (dosage, health, eldercare cost, pet, home and car tools). Both arguments are optional: omit everything to browse, pass query and/or category to narrow. Each result is a one-line teaser plus a link — the calculators are interactive and compute a personalized result client-side in the user's browser, so send the user to the URL for their result instead of estimating it yourself.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, 1-25. Default 5. | |
| query | No | What the user wants to calculate, e.g. "dog benadryl dose" or "medicaid spend down". | |
| category | No | Optional category name to filter, e.g. "Health", "Dogs", "Finance", "Cars". |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the bar is lower; the description adds key behavior beyond that: each result is a one-line teaser plus a link, and calculators compute client-side, so the agent must direct users to the URL instead of computing values. This is exactly the kind of behavioral non-obviousness that prevents misuse.
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?
Three sentences with no filler: purpose, argument usage, and behavioral guidance are each a single sentence. Front-loaded with the main verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description explains the return shape ('each result is a one-line teaser plus a link') and gives the follow-up action. For a simple 3-param read-only list tool, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. Description adds marginal context (optional query/category, omit to browse) but does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 opens with 'Find WhyIsMy.org's free interactive calculators, checkers and estimators' — a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical list of domains (dosage, health, eldercare cost, pet, home and car) clarifies scope and distinguishes it from sibling article/topic tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States optional arguments and how to use them: 'omit everything to browse, pass query and/or category to narrow.' It also instructs the agent to send the user to the URL rather than estimating results themselves. Does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_topicsList WhyIsMy.org topicsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
List the subject areas covered on WhyIsMy.org with an article count for each. Takes no arguments. Use the returned slugs as the topic argument to search_articles.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already cover safety and idempotency. Description adds no extra behavioral traits beyond stating 'Takes no arguments', which aligns with annotations. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Without an output schema, description sufficiently describes return: subject areas with article count and slugs. Could mention sorting or more detail on output structure, but adequate for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so description correctly states 'Takes no arguments'. Baseline 4 applies as schema coverage is 100% and description adds clarity on absence of parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'subject areas covered on WhyIsMy.org with an article count for each'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on topic listing rather than article retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Takes no arguments' and advises to use returned slugs as argument to search_articles. Provides clear post-use guidance, though no when-not-to-use is needed for a simple list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_articlesSearch WhyIsMy.org articlesARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Find WhyIsMy.org articles answering a "why is my…" question. Returns titles, summaries and URLs. Both arguments are optional: omit query to browse, pass topic to bias results toward one subject area. The returned summaries are partial — send the user to the article URL for the full diagnosis, fixes and cited sources.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results, 1-25. Default 5. | |
| query | No | What the user is asking, e.g. "phone stuck on SOS" or "why is my dog shaking". | |
| topic | No | Optional topic slug to bias results (see list_topics), e.g. "health", "dogs", "plumbing". |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: returns partial summaries and advises directing users to the URL for full details, which is critical for proper agent guidance.
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 two sentences covering purpose, output, parameter usage, and an important behavioral note (partial summaries). It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all aspects: what it returns, how to use parameters, and the nature of the output (partial summaries). It also suggests a follow-up action (send user to URL), ensuring completeness for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining usage patterns (omit query to browse, topic biases results) that go beyond purely technical definitions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool finds articles answering a 'why is my' question and specifies it returns titles, summaries, and URLs. It distinctly distinguishes itself from siblings (get_article for full content, list_topics for topic slugs) by focusing on search and browse functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains both optional arguments, including the ability to omit query to browse and pass topic to bias results. It implies not to use for retrieving full article content, suggesting the user visit the URL or use get_article instead, though explicit sibling comparisons are not stated.
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 tool update
- Added
list_calculators
3 tool updates
- First observed
get_article - First observed
list_topics - First observed
search_articles
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
Describe a problem in plain language; get matching products with honest caveats. Never sponsored.
A fault code, a VIN, or a recall — answered from public NHTSA and standards data.
Routes home emergencies to the right trade: who to call in what order, first steps, sourced costs.
Local US home-service pricing, providers ranked by the Vouched Score, rebates, and glossary.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceWhat ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini & Grok agree is the best product, tool, or service for any "best X for Y" need — continuously re-polled rankings with a dated verdict and a public poll audit trail. Excludes medical, financial, and legal advice.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceVeterinary clinic network in Moscow (20 clinics, open 24/7). Find a clinic with live ratings, check live prices for 900+ services, see open appointment slots, book a real visit, run a vet-approved symptom triage, check pet food safety, and query a knowledge base of 3,700+ vet-reviewed Q&As. Remote Streamable HTTP server at https://bio.vet/mcp, no auth required. Tools operate in Russian.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceSourced product prices, dated price history, specs and independent-test coverage across 4,764 hardware products and 2,064 software vendors — every figure returned with its source URL and the date it was captured. Unknown values come back as null rather than a guess, so an agent can cite what it surfaces.-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource: search_articles finds articles, get_article retrieves a specific one, list_topics exposes categories, and list_calculators handles calculators. Dependencies are explicit (slug from search_articles, topic from list_topics), so an agent can select confidently.
Naming Consistency5/5
All four tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern using imperative verbs (get, list, list, search) followed by plural nouns. No stylistic deviations or vague names.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is appropriate for a content-site server: two article operations, one topic index, and one calculator index. Every tool serves a distinct user journey and none feel redundant.
Completeness5/5
The server covers the core discover-and-retrieve workflow: browse topics, search articles, fetch article details, and find calculators. Since calculators are client-side interactive tools needing only a URL, listing them is sufficient, and returning article URLs for full fixes is a deliberate design rather than a gap.