Skip to main content
Glama
Aler1x

Monobank MCP Server

by Aler1x
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_client_info retrieves client metadata, accounts, and jars, while get_statement fetches transaction data for a specific period. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_client_info, get_statement) with identical verb style and snake_case formatting, making them predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels severely under-scoped for a banking API. Key operations like creating transactions, managing accounts, or updating client details are missing, limiting its utility for comprehensive financial tasks.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is highly incomplete for a banking domain. It only supports read operations (get_client_info, get_statement) with no ability to perform writes (e.g., transfers, payments), updates, or deletions, leaving significant gaps in typical banking workflows.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 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
    • 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.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

  • Behavior3/5

    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 mentions the authentication requirement (API token with permissions) which is valuable context, but doesn't describe what information is returned, whether there are rate limits, error conditions, or other behavioral traits. It adequately covers the basic operation but lacks detail about the tool's behavior.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds important context about authentication requirements. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more 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?

    Given that this is a read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It covers the purpose and authentication requirements, but doesn't describe what specific information is returned or the format of the response. For a tool that retrieves client information, more detail about the return data would be helpful.

    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?

    The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get client information from Monobank API' with specific resources mentioned (client, accounts, jars). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_statement' by focusing on client metadata rather than transaction data. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, so it's not a perfect 5.

    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 provides some usage context by mentioning the required API token and permissions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving client metadata but doesn't provide guidance about when not to use it or what the sibling tool 'get_statement' is for.

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

  • Behavior5/5

    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 effectively describes rate limits ('1 request per 60 seconds'), constraints ('Max period: 31 days + 1 hour'), data transformation rules (currency conversion, timestamp formatting), and output filtering (omitted fields), providing comprehensive behavioral context.

    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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by rate limits, constraints, and specific rules in a numbered list format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand.

    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?

    For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering behavioral aspects, constraints, and data transformations. However, it doesn't explicitly describe the return format or structure of the statement data, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about default account behavior ('account_id = '0' unless another is specified') and timestamp usage, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema offers.

    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 specific action ('Get account statement') and resource ('for a given period'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_client_info' which presumably retrieves different information. It provides concrete details about what the tool does beyond just the name.

    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 by specifying a period requirement and default account behavior, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. It offers some context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

    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

monobank-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

monobank-mcp 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/Aler1x/monobank-mcp'

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