A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceEnables natural language queries to be converted into policy-verified SQL, vector search, and knowledge graph plans, with evidence-backed answers and an audit log.
1
Apache 2.0
Fify
Server Details
Turn grounded AI answers into trusted comparisons, plans, timelines, and decision views.
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
- Repository
- renfei-design/fify-plugin
- GitHub Stars
- 1
- Server Listing
- fify
Available Tools
2 toolsread_information_ui_runRead an information UI runCRead-onlyInspect
App-only unseen-frame reader for the mounted Fify widget.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runId | Yes | ||
| afterSequence | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| runId | Yes | |
| state | Yes | |
| frames | Yes | |
| lastSequence | Yes |
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'app-only unseen-frame' and 'mounted widget' constraints, which are useful behavioral boundaries, though it does not explain what 'unseen-frame' means or how afterSequence affects state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-sentence description is brief and front-loads 'App-only unseen-frame reader', but it sacrifices needed semantics for brevity and is closer to under-specification than disciplined conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema and annotations covering read-only behavior, the description leaves key invocation semantics unexplained: neither parameter is documented, the 'unseen-frame' contract is undefined, and the sibling render_information_ui is not referenced. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description says nothing about runId or afterSequence. The agent is left to infer that runId identifies a run and afterSequence is a numeric cursor, with no help from the tool definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a reader for an information UI run and adds scope ('app-only unseen-frame', 'mounted Fify widget'), but relies on unstated jargon and does not clearly differentiate from the sibling render_information_ui beyond the word 'reader'. It is more specific than a tautology, yet an agent cannot confidently know what operation this performs.
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 usage guidance is provided. There is no statement of when to call this tool versus render_information_ui, no prerequisites such as Fify widget mounting, and no conditions around unseen-frame reads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
render_information_uiRender information as an interactive viewARead-onlyInspect
Render a fully grounded answer as a non-consequential interactive information view when structure or interaction materially improves it. Complete factual reasoning first and always pass the authoritative plain answer. If the user supplied sufficient facts, use them directly and invoke immediately without extra retrieval. For a named real-person profile, set profileSubject to the canonical name unless the user requests no image; Fify will perform a bounded trusted Wikimedia portrait lookup. Pre-resolved attributed Wikimedia or Openverse media may also be supplied, but never invent or guess media URLs.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| media | No | ||
| locale | Yes | ||
| sources | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| sections | Yes | ||
| groundedAnswer | Yes | ||
| profileSubject | No | Canonical person name for a real-person profile. Omit when the user requests no image or the subject is not a person. | |
| originalRequest | Yes | ||
| continuationState | No | ||
| suggestedRefinements | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| runId | Yes | |
| state | Yes | |
| frames | Yes | |
| fallbackText | Yes | |
| lastSequence | Yes |
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's 'non-consequential' claim is aligned but not additive on safety. It adds genuine behavioral disclosure beyond annotations: 'Fify will perform a bounded trusted Wikimedia portrait lookup' for named real-person profiles, plus the trust boundary of never inventing media URLs. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Five dense sentences, roughly 110 words, with the core purpose front-loaded and workflow/constraints following in logical order. Every sentence earns its place: trigger condition, reasoning sequence, immediate-invocation rule, profileSubject procedure, media constraint. No filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. The description, schema, and annotations together cover the invocation trigger, grounding workflow, profile-image behavior, and media provenance constraints. Minor gaps remain around the role of continuationState and originalRequest, but these are inferable from their names and the sibling read tool.
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 only 10%, so the description must compensate. It does add real parameter guidance for profileSubject (set to canonical name unless no image requested), media (pre-resolved Wikimedia/Openverse only, never guess URLs), and groundedAnswer (always pass the authoritative plain answer). However, required params like originalRequest, continuationState, and suggestedRefinements receive no semantic enrichment, leaving part of the burden unmet.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource+condition: 'Render a fully grounded answer as a non-consequential interactive information view when structure or interaction materially improves it.' This names the deliverable (interactive view), the input (grounded answer), and the trigger condition, and it is clearly distinguished from the sibling read_information_ui_run by the render-vs-read contrast.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is explicit and actionable: invoke 'when structure or interaction materially improves it', complete factual reasoning first, always pass the authoritative plain answer, avoid extra retrieval when sufficient facts are supplied, and never guess media URLs. It tells the agent not just what to do but the order in which to do it.
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.
2 tool updates
- First observed
read_information_ui_run - First observed
render_information_ui
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
Fact-checks generated content against your sources of truth showing what to trust, change, & verify.
Turn AI conversations into visual knowledge maps. Create, connect, search, and organize thoughts.
Visual AI for strategic thinking — SWOT, flowcharts, mindmaps, Gantt diagrams as polished SVG.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables sophisticated reasoning workflows using graph-based representations for AI models.11Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to fork plans into counterfactual worlds, score them with rubrics and simulations, detect contradictions, measure regret, and merge a winner with a full audit trail.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables teams to capture and distill knowledge from sessions, meetings, and feeds into a searchable, vector-embedded graph, then retrieve or synthesize it conversationally via semantic search and citations.1724Apache 2.0
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The two tools are distinct in action: one reads the mounted widget's frames, the other renders an information view. However, both share the 'information_ui' terminology, and the cryptic 'read_information_ui_run' naming could cause some initial confusion about where the boundary lies.
Naming Consistency3/5
Both names start with a verb and use snake_case, but 'render_information_ui' follows a clean verb_noun pattern while 'read_information_ui_run' adds an awkward '_run' suffix. This minor inconsistency suggests a mixed convention that is still readable.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the set feels thin for a general-purpose information UI server, but it may be appropriately scoped for a tightly coupled widget with read and render capabilities. The tools each seem to serve a distinct role, making the small count borderline rather than clearly deficient.
Completeness4/5
For the apparent domain of managing a Fify information widget, providing a read mechanism and a render mechanism covers the core lifecycle. The render tool also incorporates fallback behaviors like profile lookups and media handling, suggesting the surface is reasonably complete for its narrow scope.