Bazel MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: building, fetching dependencies, listing targets, querying the dependency graph, setting workspace path, and testing. The descriptions clearly differentiate their functions, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools follow a consistent 'bazel_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., bazel_build_target, bazel_fetch_dependencies), using snake_case throughout. This predictable naming makes the tool set easy to navigate and understand.
Tool Count5/5With 6 tools, this server is well-scoped for Bazel operations, covering core workflows like building, testing, querying, and workspace management. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness4/5The tool set provides strong coverage for essential Bazel tasks, including build, test, query, and dependency management. A minor gap exists in operations like cleaning or caching, but agents can work around this with the available tools for most common workflows.
Average 3.2/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Build') but doesn't cover critical traits like whether this is a long-running process, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a build operation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a build operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the build process entails, potential side effects, or what to expect as a result, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Build') and resource ('specified Bazel targets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bazel_test_target' or 'bazel_query_target' beyond the basic action, missing specific scope details that would earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'bazel_test_target' for testing or 'bazel_list_targets' for listing. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a workspace path set via 'bazel_set_workspace_path', or exclusions like not using it for dependency fetching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Run Bazel tests') but doesn't describe what this entails—such as whether it's a blocking operation, how long it might take, what happens on failure, or if it requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves execution and potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for quick understanding by an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of running tests (which involves execution, potential side effects, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., runtime, error handling), usage context, and what to expect as output (e.g., test results, logs). With no annotations to fill these gaps, the description doesn't provide enough information for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'targets' and 'additionalArgs'. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters, but the description doesn't provide extra context like examples of common test arguments or target patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run Bazel tests') and the resource ('for specified targets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bazel_build_target' or 'bazel_query_target' beyond the 'test' verb, which leaves some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'bazel_build_target' (for building) or 'bazel_query_target' (for querying), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured workspace) or appropriate contexts (e.g., during testing phases). This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read operation that retrieves dependencies, but the description doesn't specify whether this modifies workspace state, requires network access, has side effects, or what happens when dependencies already exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching dependencies often involves network operations and workspace state), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but leaves many contextual questions unanswered about behavior, side effects, and results. For a dependency-fetching operation, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting, but provides no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('fetch') and resource ('Bazel external dependencies'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'bazel_build_target' or 'bazel_query_target' - all involve Bazel operations but with different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is needed, or how it differs from other Bazel operations like building or testing targets. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists targets but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit), output format, error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, earning its place with clear intent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation-free tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error cases) or behavioral constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no extra context on path usage or additionalArgs). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'Bazel targets', specifying scope 'under a given path'. It distinguishes from siblings like bazel_build_target or bazel_test_target by focusing on listing rather than building/testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from bazel_query_target which might also list targets, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to list targets in a specific path, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like bazel_query_target or bazel_build_target. It mentions the path parameter context but lacks when-not scenarios or clear prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this sets workspace path 'for subsequent commands', implying persistence/statefulness, but doesn't clarify whether this affects the entire session, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or what happens on invalid paths. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and usage context without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (state-changing configuration), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description provides minimal but adequate coverage. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about behavioral implications, error conditions, or return values. For a configuration tool with state persistence, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter ('path') as an absolute workspace directory path. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('current Bazel workspace path'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on workspace configuration rather than build/test/query operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('for subsequent commands'), suggesting this should be called before other Bazel operations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The relationship to sibling tools is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions querying but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and output, making it incomplete for a tool with two parameters and no structured safety or output information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('query'), the resource ('Bazel dependency graph'), and the target ('targets matching a pattern'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'bazel_build_target' or 'bazel_test_target' which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for querying dependencies but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bazel_list_targets' or 'bazel_fetch_dependencies'. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nacgarg/bazel-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server