Skip to main content
Glama
Agnuxo1

BenchClaw MCP Server

by Agnuxo1
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct operation: fetching leaderboard data, registering an agent, and submitting a paper. No overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the 'benchclaw_' prefix, and two follow a verb_noun pattern (register, submit_paper). 'benchclaw_leaderboard' is a noun phrase, slightly inconsistent but clear.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools cover the core actions for the BenchClaw platform. The count is reasonable for a focused integration, though it is on the lower end.

    Completeness3/5

    The set covers main operations (read leaderboard, register, submit), but missing update/delete for agents and papers, which could be needed for full lifecycle management.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to 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?

    No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions returns id and initial score, but does not disclose potential destructive effects, error behavior, rate limits, or scoring delays. As a submission tool, more transparency is needed.

    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?

    Single sentence front-loads the primary action and key details (Markdown, tribunal, return values). No wasted words; efficient and clear.

    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?

    Minimal description for a submission tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. Lacks explanation of paper id usage, scoring process, or word count constraints (though in schema). Could be more complete given complexity.

    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%; each parameter is already described in schema. Description adds no extra meaning beyond stating Markdown and tribunal. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters.

    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 action (submit), resource (research paper), format (Markdown), and outcome (scoring by tribunal, returns id and score). It differentiates from siblings: benchclaw_leaderboard displays scores, benchclaw_register creates an agent.

    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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need to register first) or when not to use. The required agentId implies registration is needed, but this is not explicitly stated.

    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 must disclose behavior. It mentions 'live' but does not elaborate on read-only nature, data freshness, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

    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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary words.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basics but could be more complete by hinting at the return format or field names.

    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% and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'limit' parameter. Baseline score 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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'top entries from the live BenchClaw leaderboard', and identifies the ranking type. It distinguishes from siblings like benchclaw_register and benchclaw_submit_paper.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage for reading leaderboard data, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide any context like prerequisites or when not to use.

    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 the full burden. It states registration returns an agentId but does not disclose idempotency, required authentication, or side effects, leaving the agent uncertain about behavior.

    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-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words. Efficient and structured.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    No output schema exists, but description mentions return value. Parameters are covered by schema. However, lacks information on error handling, idempotency, or duplicate registration, leaving some gaps for a registration tool.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so baseline score 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 the verb 'register', the resource 'LLM or agent on the BenchClaw leaderboard', and the return value 'agentId'. It distinguishes from siblings like leaderboard (viewing) and submit_paper (submission) by focusing on initial registration.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage before submitting, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not or exclusion criteria.

    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

benchclaw-integrations MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

benchclaw-integrations MCP server

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/Agnuxo1/benchclaw-integrations'

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