ab_mcp

by AvinashBhargav

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: file_stats reports statistics, find_files searches by glob, list_files lists directory contents, read_file reads entire file, read_lines reads specific lines, search_files searches for text, and write_file writes content. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: file_stats, find_files, list_files, read_file, read_lines, search_files, write_file. The naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a sandbox file system utility. It provides essential operations (read, write, list, search, find, stats) without being overly numerous or sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core file operations well, but lacks delete, rename, or move functionality. Given the sandbox context and conditional write, these omissions are minor and do not severely hinder typical workflows.
Average 3.9/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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?
No annotations provided, and the description only states the basic action. Lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as read-only nature, file size limits, encoding assumptions, or error handling.
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?
Two sentences: one for purpose, one for parameter. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., separate sections).
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?
Although the tool has an output schema, the description does not clarify what is returned. Lacks details on error cases (e.g., file not found) or encoding, leaving gaps for a simple but complete understanding.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds that 'path' is relative to the root. This provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's type and title.
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?
Clearly states 'Read the contents of a text file inside the sandbox root.' This distinguishes it from siblings like file_stats, find_files, list_files, read_lines, search_files, and write_file by specifying reading a text file's contents within a constrained location.
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. Does not mention when not to use or provide comparisons to siblings like read_lines or search_files.
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 provided, and description lacks details on behavior (e.g., read-only, performance, error handling). It only states output types.
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?
Description is short, front-loaded, and efficient—one line for purpose, one for parameter.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description covers core functionality, but lacks edge cases or limitations. Adequate for a simple tool.
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?
Schema has no description (0% coverage), but description explains the 'path' parameter as 'file or directory relative to root', adding meaning.
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 it reports stats for files (lines/words/chars) or directories (file count/total size). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_files or read_file.
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 gives context but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses case-insensitivity and return format, but omits important behaviors: is search recursive? Does it skip binary files? What's the default max_results value and behavior? No annotation support.
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?
Concise and well-structured with separate sections for purpose, returns, and Args. No redundant phrases, though the Args section could be slightly more integrated.
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?
Covers purpose, return format, and parameters. Missing details on recursive behavior, default max_results value, and whether binary files or large files are handled. Adequate but not complete for full agent decision-making.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning for all three parameters: query (text to search), subdir (limit to subdirectory, '.' for everything), max_results (stop after N lines, 0=server default). Adds significant value beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states 'Search for a plain-text string across text files (case-insensitive)' and describes return format (matching lines with path and line number). Distinguishes from siblings like find_files (file name search).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Doesn't mention scope (recursive or not), file type handling, or limitations. Lacks context for optimal usage.
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 provided, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions glob matching and subdirectory limiting but does not clarify if search is recursive, whether hidden files are included, or any edge cases. Lacks depth for a read tool with no annotations.
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?
Description is minimal and efficient: one sentence overview plus parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with action and example.
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?
Given the simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage. Missing details like recursion depth and hidden file behavior, but output schema handles return values. Adequate for most agents.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: 'pattern' as a glob pattern, 'subdir' as directory limit with '.' for everything. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema defaults, though could be more precise about pattern scope (e.g., full path vs basename).
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?
Description clearly states the tool finds files by name pattern using glob, with examples. It distinguishes from siblings like list_files and search_files by focusing on name-based pattern matching.
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 name-pattern searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_files or list_files. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses destructive behavior (overwrite) and that it operates on text files in the sandbox root, but lacks details on error handling or behavior when the path does not exist.
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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and uses clear bullet-style argument descriptions without unnecessary words.
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 simple write tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, prerequisite, and parameter semantics. Could be improved by mentioning that content replaces the entire file (not append) or what happens on invalid paths.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial context: 'path' is relative to root, and 'content' is the full text to write. This clarifies usage beyond the bare schema.
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 ('Create or overwrite') and the resource ('text file inside the sandbox root'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that read or list files.
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 provides an explicit prerequisite ('Disabled unless the server was started with AB_MCP_ALLOW_WRITE enabled'), but does not compare directly to siblings or specify when to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It declares the operation as listing files/folders, which is non-destructive and read-only. The output schema further clarifies the return structure.
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: one for purpose, one for parameter. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the action.
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?
Given low complexity, presence of output schema, and sibling tools, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior without missing critical details.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'subdir: Path relative to the root. Use "." for the root itself.' This clarifies usage beyond the schema type and default.
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 explicitly states 'List files and folders inside the sandbox root (or a subdirectory).' This distinguishes it from siblings like find_files (recursive search) and read_file (content reading).
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 explains when to use the subdir parameter (path relative to root, '.' for root). It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds useful behavioral details (1-based line numbering, end=0 means to end of file), but could explicitly state the operation is read-only (no side effects). Since annotations are missing, the description adequately covers safety implicitly.
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 plus an Args list—no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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?
Covers input parameters fully and provides usage context. Output format is not described, but an output schema exists (not shown) which presumably handles that. Minor gap: no mention that lines are returned as an array.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all three parameters (path, start, end), including semantics for start (1-based) and end (inclusive, 0 for end). This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states the tool reads a slice of lines from a text file, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool read_file by noting it handles files too large for read_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly names the alternative (read_file) and specifies when to use this tool (for large files) versus the alternative.
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:

[![AB_MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AvinashBhargav/AB_MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AvinashBhargav/AB_MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![AB_MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AvinashBhargav/AB_MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AvinashBhargav/AB_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/AvinashBhargav/AB_MCP'

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