Skip to main content
Glama
Axcient

Public Gateway MCP

Official
by Axcient
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation1/5

    Two tools (get_billable_usage and get_client_info) have identical descriptions, making them indistinguishable. The add tool is unrelated, but the overlap between the other two is severe.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Naming pattern is inconsistent: 'add' does not follow the 'get_' prefix of the other tools. Additionally, get_client_info has a misleading name given its description duplicates get_billable_usage.

    Tool Count3/5

    3 tools is borderline low but could be acceptable for a very narrow domain. However, the duplication reduces effective count to 2, making the set feel incomplete.

    Completeness2/5

    The server's purpose is unclear, but the limited scope (addition and two identical usage reports) suggests significant gaps. No update, delete, or list operations for clients or usage data.

  • Average 2.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 12 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 Apache 2.0.

  • 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. The description claims it returns a billable usage report but contradicts the tool name. It mentions date range functionality that isn't supported by the input schema, creating confusion about behavior.

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

    Conciseness2/5

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

    Only two sentences, but they are misleading and lack clarity. The phrase 'If not provided' is ambiguous and does not correspond to any parameter, making the description inaccurate rather than concise.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the name vs. description mismatch, missing date range parameter, and lack of behavioral disclosure, the description fails to provide sufficient context for a tool with one required parameter and an output schema.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The description fails to explain the sole parameter 'client_id'. It mentions 'specified date range' but no such parameter exists, directly contradicting the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no meaningful parameter guidance.

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

    Purpose2/5

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

    The name 'get_client_info' suggests retrieving general client information, but the description says 'Get billable usage report for specified date range,' which is a mismatch. The sibling tool 'get_billable_usage' likely handles billable usage, causing confusion about this tool's role.

    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 vs. alternatives like 'get_billable_usage'. The description implies a default date range but is vague, leaving the agent unsure of the intended use.

    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 present; description only states 'add', implying a pure computation, but lacks details on error behavior, overflow, or return format. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    Single sentence is concise, but the phrase 'Axcient way' is unnecessary and unclear. Adequate but could be more 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?

    For a simple tool with output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain outputs or provide sufficient context for an AI agent to use it effectively.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no parameter meaning beyond type hints. 'Add two numbers' does not explain what parameters 'a' and 'b' represent or how the default for 'b' is used.

    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 verb 'add' and resource 'two numbers' clearly state the core operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_billable_usage and get_client_info, which are unrelated.

    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 or alternatives. Siblings are unrelated, but the description provides no context or prerequisites.

    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 description carries full burden. It discloses default date range and output structure (list in children field), but lacks details on auth, rate limits, or error cases.

    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?

    Three concise sentences with clear structure: purpose, default behavior, output explanation. No redundant information.

    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 2 optional params, no annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, default, and output field. It is mostly complete, though could mention response type briefly.

    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 0%, so description compensates partially. It explains that optional start_date and end_date default to current month, but does not add detail on constraints or format 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?

    The description clearly states it gets a billable usage report for a date range. It specifies the resource and verb, and differentiates from siblings 'add' and 'get_client_info'.

    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?

    It explains when to use (specified date range, else current month) and implies default behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.

    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

public-gateway-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

public-gateway-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/Axcient/public-gateway-mcp'

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