A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceEnables MCP-capable assistants to read files, work packages, and wiki pages from an openDesk instance using the account's existing permissions.
1
Apache 2.0
mcp-moncompte
Server Details
Recherche et lecture des guides de connexion de moncompte.org (MCP, lecture seule).
Glama couldn't complete the latest health check. If this server requires authentication, missing or expired test credentials may be the cause. A test profile lets Glama authenticate for health checks and discover tools; it is separate from your personal connections.
If you are the author, claim ownership, then add or update a test profile under Admin → Test Profile.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Uptime
- 92.4% over 58 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
- Repository
- waddou/mcp-moncompte
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- mcp-moncompte
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_articles finds articles by keywords, while get_article retrieves a specific article by slug. There is no overlap or ambiguity in when to use each.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (search_articles, get_article). The naming is predictable and clearly indicates the action and resource.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the server feels thin, though for a narrow read-only purpose (searching and retrieving articles) the count is arguably sufficient. It sits at the borderline of the expected 3-15 range.
Completeness5/5
For a public read-only documentation server, the search-then-fetch workflow fully covers the domain. There are no missing operations that would cause agent dead ends; every article is discoverable via search and retrievable by slug.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_articleAInspect
Retourne le contenu complet d'une notice de moncompte.org à partir de son slug (obtenu via search_articles).
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug de l'article (ex. « mon-compte-revolut »). |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates the tool returns the full content, but does not disclose error handling, read-only nature, or performance. For a simple retrieval, it is adequate but could add more.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately states what the tool does and where the input comes from. It lacks mention of error scenarios but is generally complete.
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 coverage is 100% and the description adds value by explaining that the slug comes from search_articles, providing context beyond the schema's parameter description.
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 ('retourne'), the resource ('contenu complet d'une notice'), and the input ('slug'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_articles' by specifying that the slug is obtained via it.
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 states that the slug should be obtained via search_articles, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_articlesAInspect
Recherche des notices/guides « mon compte » de moncompte.org par mots-clés. Retourne une liste (titre, slug, URL, description). Utiliser le slug avec get_article.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Nombre de résultats (1-20, défaut 10). | |
| query | Yes | Mots-clés de recherche (ex. « se connecter Revolut »). |
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return format (list of fields) and gives an example query. However, it lacks details on ordering, pagination, or search behavior (fuzzy matching, operators). Adequate but not comprehensive.
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-loading the purpose and return format, then linking to sibling tool. No unnecessary words.
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 simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and how to chain with get_article. The example in the schema adds further clarity.
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 descriptions for both parameters, including an example for query. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 searches for notices/guides by keywords, returns a list with title, slug, URL, description, and instructs to use the slug with get_article, distinguishing it from the sibling tool.
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?
It explicitly says to use the slug with get_article, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.
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.
2 tool updates
- First observed
get_article - First observed
search_articles
Related MCP Connectors
Guides de connexion aux espaces clients français de compteparticulier.com (MCP, lecture seule).
Search and read the official MintMCP documentation, the enterprise MCP gateway.
Service public documentaire ScoreConso en lecture seule (guides, statuts, contenus vérifiés).
Read-only Frasma MCP: profile, knowledge search, diagnostic handoff. No email.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables read-only interaction with YesWeHack hunter accounts via MCP, allowing consultation of programs, scopes, reports, and credits using email/password/TOTP authentication.183MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables an agent to sign in to a Meuhedet online account and read lab stickers and results, prescriptions, future appointments, visit approvals, and visit referrals through a local stdio MCP connection. Access is read-only and restricted to the user's own account.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables support agents to look up customer account details and billing or incident information through two read-only MCP tools for triage workflows.2MIT
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.