Skip to main content
Glama
BACH-AI-Tools

Onecompiler APIs MCP Server

by BACH-AI-Tools
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'execute_code' has a clearly defined and distinct purpose.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The naming is trivially consistent as there is only one tool. It follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('execute_code'), which would be a good standard if more tools were added.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for a server named 'Onecompiler APIs MCP Server', which suggests a broader scope related to code execution and possibly compilation APIs. This feels thin and under-scoped for the apparent domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a compiler/execution API server. It lacks obvious operations like listing supported languages, getting code execution status or results separately, managing sessions, or handling compilation-specific tasks, which are typical in such domains.

  • Average 2.3/5 across 1 of 1 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 is passing

  • 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

  • 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. However, it only states the action ('Execute Code') without detailing traits like safety (e.g., whether it's read-only or destructive), performance (e.g., timeouts, rate limits), authentication needs, or output behavior. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

    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 description is concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more specific. The structure is efficient, but the lack of detail limits its overall effectiveness despite the brevity.

    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 implied by executing code across multiple languages and databases, the description is incomplete. It lacks annotations, has no output schema, and provides minimal behavioral context. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates, what it returns, and under what conditions it should be used, making it insufficient for a tool of this potential scope.

    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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are defined or required. The description does not add any parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none to document. This aligns with the baseline expectation for zero parameters, where minimal description suffices.

    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 description 'Execute Code with 70+ languages & Databases' states a general purpose but is vague about the specific action and resource. It mentions 'Execute Code' as the verb but doesn't clarify what 'Execute' entails (e.g., run, compile, evaluate) or what 'Code' refers to (e.g., scripts, queries, snippets). The mention of '70+ languages & Databases' adds scope but doesn't make the purpose specific or distinguish from hypothetical siblings, as there are none provided.

    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 lacks context about scenarios where execution is appropriate, prerequisites, or exclusions. With no sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate, but it still fails to offer any usage instructions, leaving the agent without direction on application.

    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

bachai-onecompiler-apis MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

bachai-onecompiler-apis 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/BACH-AI-Tools/bachai-onecompiler-apis'

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