standard_repositories
Every repository a standards body publishes, with maturity, stars, forks, open issues and archived status. Free.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
api-evangelist
TDQS
D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, mutability, or read-only nature. The mention of 'Free' is ambiguous and does not address behavioral implications such as rate limits or data immutability.
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 description is brief and avoids redundancy, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It conveys minimal useful information and could benefit from a more explicit action, though it does not waste words.
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?
The description fails to cover output format, pagination, or any related context. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent uncertain about what the tool returns or how to handle results.
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?
The schema includes parameters page, slug, and limit, but the description provides no explanation of their meaning or usage. With 0% parameter coverage in the description, the agent has no guidance on how to set or interpret these fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it pertains to repositories published by a standards body and mentions fields like maturity and stars, but it does not clearly indicate the action (e.g., list, search, get). It lacks a specific verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like standard_adoption or standard_coalition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context for selecting it over similar-looking tools, and no mention of scenarios where it is appropriate or not.
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
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, reducing ambiguity. However, some overlap exists between search tools like 'find_posts' and 'search_api_evangelist', though they target different scopes (stories vs. unified search). Overall, an agent can reasonably differentiate them.
Naming Consistency3/5
The majority of tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., find_areas, get_post), but several use noun_noun or inconsistent prefixes (e.g., api_coverage, company_gaps, insights_adoption). This inconsistency can confuse pattern recognition, though the pattern is still readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 56 tools, the server is overloaded for a typical MCP context. While the domain is broad, the sheer number risks agent confusion and selection errors. Calibration suggests 25+ tools are excessive, and this server far exceeds that threshold.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of API governance, search, analysis, and generation tasks. There are no obvious dead ends for navigating the API Evangelist network, though some areas (e.g., direct API creation) are intentionally out of scope. Minor consolidation could improve efficiency.