Skip to main content
Glama
AlexButiev

Avito Personal MCP

by AlexButiev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one checks whether the MCP server can reach the user's Chrome session, and the other returns the authenticated Avito profile identity. There is no overlap or risk of choosing the wrong tool for a task.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Both tool names share the 'avito_' prefix and use snake_case, which provides some consistency. However, 'selfcheck' and 'me' follow different naming conventions, and neither follows the more common verb_noun pattern, making the naming schema somewhat mixed but still readable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin and leaves the impression of an early-stage or deliberately minimal implementation. The count is borderline appropriate given the diagnostic-first positioning, but it does not yet feel like a substantive toolset.

    Completeness2/5

    For a server branded as 'Avito Personal MCP', the surface is incomplete: there are no operations for managing listings, messages, favorites, or other common personal account activities. The current tools only cover session reachability and profile identity, leaving significant gaps for most real workflows.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 10 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • 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, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add context beyond the name: it is a read-oriented return of identity and it explicitly discloses that profile discovery is not guessed from undocumented endpoints and will be implemented later. However, it does not state what happens on an unauthicated call or whether the tool currently returns data or an error.

    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 essential purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The following two sentences explain a deliberate implementation decision, which is useful context for an agent deciding whether the tool is reliable. It is slightly verbose for the point being made, but still compact and readable.

    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?

    For a zero-input tool with an output schema, the description covers the main need: it identifies the resource and warns that implementation is pending. However, the contradiction between 'Return' and 'will be implemented' leaves ambiguity about whether the tool is currently callable, and no guidance is given about what to do instead.

    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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so parameter semantics are not at issue. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meanings.

    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 first sentence, 'Return the authenticated Avito profile identity,' names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling avito_selfcheck, but the resource ('profile identity') is clear. The later implementation caveat slightly muddies current functionality but does not obscure the intended purpose.

    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 for when to use this tool versus avito_selfcheck or any alternative. The description notes that discovery 'will be implemented after observing the user's real authenticated browser session,' implying unavailability, but it never states when to call it or what conditions should route an agent elsewhere.

    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 explicitly says the check is 'intentionally non-invasive' and describes exactly what it does: enumerate open page URLs/titles and report whether an Avito tab is visible. This is transparent and sets appropriate expectations for 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.

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is two concise sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable non-invasive context without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

    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?

    For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It defines the purpose, scope, non-invasive nature, and the specific signal it reports. An agent has enough information to decide whether and when to invoke it.

    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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs.

    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 states a specific action and resource: 'Check whether the MCP server can reach the user-controlled Chrome session.' It also clarifies the exact scope by saying it only enumerates open page URLs/titles and reports whether an Avito tab is visible. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool avito_me, so it falls just short of 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 Guidelines4/5

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

    The description gives clear context for use: this is a non-invasive connectivity diagnostic for verifying access to the Chrome session. It does not state when to prefer avito_me instead, nor does it name any alternatives, but the diagnostic purpose is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when to call it.

    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

avito-personal-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

avito-personal-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/AlexButiev/avito-personal-mcp'

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