Skip to main content
Glama
Amana03

Universal MCP Server

by Amana03
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

50%
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: delete_file removes files, search_files finds files based on content, and write_file creates or modifies files. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool without confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (delete_file, search_files, write_file) using snake_case throughout. This predictability enhances readability and usability for agents.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a 'Universal MCP Server' name, suggesting it might lack broader functionality. However, for basic file operations, the count is borderline but manageable, as it covers core actions without being excessive.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is significantly incomplete for file operations, missing essential actions like read_file or list_files, which are critical for a comprehensive file management system. This gap will likely cause agent failures when trying to access or list file contents.

  • Average 2.8/5 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
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a file' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in transparency.

    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 'Delete a file' is extremely concise—three words that directly state the action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse. This is an example of optimal brevity for a 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?

    Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or outcomes, which are crucial for a deletion tool. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for informed 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, with the single parameter 'key' documented as 'The file key/name to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, format, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description 'Delete a file' states a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('a file'), providing basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what type of file or system is involved, and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'write_file' or 'search_files' beyond the obvious action difference. It's not tautological but remains vague in scope.

    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. There are sibling tools like 'search_files' and 'write_file', but no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate versus other operations. Usage is implied by the action name alone, with no explicit context or exclusions.

    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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Search for files'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (pagination, format), rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. While the purpose is clear, it doesn't provide enough context about behavioral aspects (permissions, result format, limitations) that would help an agent use the tool effectively. For a search operation with no structured metadata, the description should do more to compensate.

    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 the single parameter 'query' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides ('The text to search for'). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

    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 ('Search for files') and target resource ('files containing specific text'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling tools (delete_file, write_file), which are clearly different operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score for sibling differentiation.

    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. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or how this differs from other search operations that might exist in the broader context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

    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 the basic action. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this overwrites existing files, requires permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

    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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Write content to a file') that directly states the core function without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding.

    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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or behavioral nuances like overwriting. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed 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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters 'key' and 'content' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'content' is written to 'key', which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 'Write content to a file' clearly states the action (write) and resource (file), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_file' or 'search_files' beyond the obvious verb difference, missing explicit scope or resource distinctions.

    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 prerequisites (e.g., file existence), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'delete_file' or 'search_files', leaving usage context entirely implicit.

    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

universal-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

universal-mcp-server 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/Amana03/universal-mcp-server'

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