Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-archimedes

by io.github.archimedes-market

search_trust_reports

Search the Archimedes corpus of scored public repositories. Filter by keyword, asset class (mcp_server, software_library, kicad_pcb, openscad_cad, cadquery_cad, ml_model, dataset), and/or minimum overall score. Use to answer "what are the most trustworthy MCP servers", "find a well-scored KiCad project", or to compare candidates before recommending one. Returns repo, scores, badge and report URL, best-scoring first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoDefault 10.
queryNoKeyword matched against owner and repo name.
min_scoreNoMinimum overall score.
asset_classNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: it returns repos sorted by score, including scores, badge, and report URL. It does not mention destructive effects, which is appropriate for a search tool.

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 three sentences, front-loading the main action, followed by filters and use cases. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, filters, example intents, and output summary. It lacks pagination or error details, but is sufficient for a search 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?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the filtering logic ('Filter by keyword, asset class, and/or minimum overall score') and the sorting behavior ('best-scoring first'), which are not fully captured in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('Archimedes corpus of scored public repositories'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_bounties by specifying the corpus and output.

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 provides clear usage context with example user queries ('what are the most trustworthy MCP servers') and use cases ('compare candidates before recommending one'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-archimedes toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_dependencies for batch dependency trust, check_repo_trust for detailed single-repo trust, search_trust_reports for discovering trusted repos, search_bounties for finding bounties, get_bounty_details for bounty specifics, and get_platform_stats for aggregate metrics. No overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (check_dependencies, check_repo_trust, get_bounty_details, get_platform_stats, search_bounties, search_trust_reports). The pattern is predictable and unambiguous.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for the server's dual focus on trust checking (3 tools) and bounty marketplace (2 tools), plus one for platform stats. Each tool earns its place without overwhelming the agent.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core workflows: batch and single-repo trust checks with search capability, bounty discovery and details, and platform stats. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to initiate a scan for unscanned entries, but the descriptions provide URLs for that, so agents can work around it.

Resources