Skip to main content
Glama

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    With only one tool, there's no ambiguity between tools. However, the tool's purpose is so specific and obscure that an agent would struggle to determine when to use it, reducing its effective disambiguation to only the model's understanding.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    A single tool name defines its own pattern. There is no inconsistency. The naming is descriptive of its niche purpose.

    Tool Count2/5

    One tool is extremely few for any server and feels too sparse. Even if the tool is complete for its specific action, it's likely to be insufficient for any meaningful workflow with a single step. It earns a 2 due to the severe lack of surrounding 'anatomy'.

    Completeness1/5

    The presence of a 'step' implies a larger process that is impossible to execute with only a single, rigid step. There is no 'create', 'update', 'list', or 'get' functionality, which are CRUD operations. The tool's documentation hints at a broader system that is not exposed.

  • Average 1.5/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 33 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • 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.

  • This server has been verified by its author.

  • 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is a read or write, what side effects occur, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The only hint is a payment requirement, which 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.

    Conciseness2/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is brief but under-specified. It reads as a title, not an explanatory sentence. 'A2A 13th-Harmonic Consensus Engine' is essentially the tool name, and 'Requires 402 Payment on Rally 4' is a cryptic note. No sentence earns its place by clarifying functionality.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's core function, the meaning of required parameters, what the result is, or any side effects. An agent has no way to safely 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 only 20% (only 'payment' has a description), and the tool's description does not explain any of the five parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema, and with low coverage, it fails to compensate for undocumented parameters like point1, point2, token, and serialNo.

    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 'A2A 13th-Harmonic Consensus Engine' is a noun phrase without an action verb, leaving unclear whether the tool computes, validates, or retrieves consensus. It does not distinguish from siblings (none exist) and provides only a vague hint of what the tool does.

    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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The payment requirement ('Requires 402 Payment on Rally 4') is a prerequisite, not a usage scenario. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

    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

a2a-fep-consensus MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

a2a-fep-consensus MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

shields.io Endpoint

a2a-fep-consensus MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

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/AGICoffe/a2a-fep-consensus'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server