ArtifactHub MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: helm-chart-info retrieves metadata, helm-chart-template gets specific template files, helm-chart-templates-fuzzy-search searches across templates, helm-chart-values retrieves the values.yaml file, and helm-chart-values-fuzzy-search searches within values.yaml. The descriptions make it unambiguous which tool to use for each task.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear 'helm-chart-' prefix and descriptive suffixes (-info, -template, -templates-fuzzy-search, -values, -values-fuzzy-search). This predictable naming convention makes it easy to understand each tool's function at a glance.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of interacting with Helm charts on Artifact Hub. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects: metadata retrieval, template access, values file access, and search capabilities for both templates and values.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface provides excellent coverage for querying and searching Helm chart components, but lacks any write operations (e.g., uploading or modifying charts). Given Artifact Hub's nature as a repository, this is reasonable, but agents cannot perform any creation or update actions through this interface.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 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

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 tool retrieves content but doesn't mention whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool interacting with an external service like Artifact Hub.
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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of interacting with Helm charts and Artifact Hub, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely returns file content, it lacks details on response format, error cases, or dependencies. This leaves the agent with incomplete operational context.
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 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage notes. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('Get the content') and resource ('a template file from a Helm chart in Artifact Hub'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'helm-chart-templates-fuzzy-search' (which likely searches rather than retrieves exact content), so it misses full sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'helm-chart-templates-fuzzy-search' for fuzzy matching or 'helm-chart-info' for general chart metadata, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
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 mentions 'fuzzy search' but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., tolerance levels, ranking), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance considerations like rate limits. This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to understand quickly, with no wasted information.
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?
Given the complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what the search returns (e.g., matches, scores), how results are formatted, or error conditions. With no annotations to fill gaps, this leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (chartRepo, chartName, searchQuery, version). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or format details, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('fuzzy search') and target ('through all template filenames/contents in a Helm chart'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'helm-chart-values-fuzzy-search', which searches values instead of templates, leaving some ambiguity about sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'helm-chart-info' or 'helm-chart-template'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a chart repository or when fuzzy searching is preferred over exact matching, offering minimal 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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when the chart/version isn't found. For a read operation with external dependencies, this is inadequate.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the values.yaml is returned in (raw text, parsed structure?), doesn't mention error scenarios, and provides no context about Artifact Hub integration. For a tool interacting with external systems, more completeness is needed.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain the relationship between chartRepo and chartName, provide examples of valid values, or clarify what 'Artifact Hub' means in this context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the documentation work.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('values.yaml file for a specific Helm chart from Artifact Hub'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'helm-chart-values-fuzzy-search', which likely serves a similar purpose with different search behavior.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'helm-chart-values-fuzzy-search' for approximate matching or 'helm-chart-info' for general metadata, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
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 tool performs a 'fuzzy search' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity, scoring). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of matches with context). This is inadequate for a search tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('fuzzy search') and specifies the scope ('all properties/values/comments in a Helm chart's values.yaml file'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the complexity of a fuzzy search operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the search behavior, result format, or error handling. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for using the tool effectively is lacking, especially for an agent needing to interpret results.
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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (chartRepo, chartName, searchQuery, version). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of search queries or how 'fuzzy' matching works. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('fuzzy search') and the target resource ('all properties/values/comments in a Helm chart's values.yaml file'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'helm-chart-values' (likely a direct fetch) and 'helm-chart-templates-fuzzy-search' (targets templates instead of values).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing the chart to be available in a repository, or compare it to siblings like 'helm-chart-values' (which might retrieve the full values file) or 'helm-chart-templates-fuzzy-search' (which searches templates). Usage context is implied but not explicit.
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 but only states what information is returned. It doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, pagination, or response format. The description is minimal beyond stating the basic operation.
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 with zero waste - every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. Front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by source and specific return details. Appropriately sized for this simple tool.
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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what format the information comes in, whether it's a single object or list, error handling, or any limitations. The description should provide more context given the lack of structured metadata.
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 the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get information'), resource ('Helm chart'), source ('from Artifact Hub'), and specific information included ('ID, latest version, and description'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on general chart metadata rather than templates or values.
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 when needing basic chart metadata from Artifact Hub, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the fuzzy-search siblings or template/value-specific tools. No explicit exclusions or comparison to siblings are provided.
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:

[![artifacthub-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlexW00/artifacthub-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlexW00/artifacthub-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![artifacthub-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlexW00/artifacthub-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlexW00/artifacthub-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/AlexW00/artifacthub-mcp'

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