Skip to main content
Glama
Basti-Fantasti

Delphi Build MCP Server

by Basti-Fantasti
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v2.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes: compile_delphi_project handles compilation, while the other three manage configuration generation and extension. However, generate_config_from_build_log and generate_config_from_multiple_build_logs could be confused as both generate config files, though the latter's focus on multiple logs/platforms provides some differentiation.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, using verbs like 'compile', 'extend', and 'generate' paired with descriptive nouns. This uniformity makes the toolset predictable and easy to navigate.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of Delphi project compilation and configuration management. Each tool serves a distinct role, and the count is appropriate for covering core workflows without being overwhelming or insufficient.

    Completeness4/5

    The toolset covers key aspects of Delphi build processes: compilation, config generation from single or multiple logs, and config extension. A minor gap is the lack of tools for managing or cleaning up configurations, but agents can likely work around this with existing tools for most use cases.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 4 of 4 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
    • Last stable release on
    • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Provides target-specific behavior details (minimal vs full config) beyond annotations, but omits important aspects like file overwrite behavior, error handling, and permissions.

    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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by platform differentiation; no wasted words.

    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 main functionality and platform differences, but lacks details on output format, success/failure behavior, and usage context relative to sibling tools.

    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?

    Input schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional parameter explanation, meeting baseline but not exceeding.

    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 the tool generates a config file from an IDE build log, and distinguishes behavior for Windows vs cross-compilation targets.

    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?

    Implies usage for single build log config generation, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or comparison with sibling tools like extend_config_from_build_log.

    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?

    Describes merging behavior and preservation of settings, but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or side effects. No annotations to supplement.

    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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by context and behavior, with no wasted words.

    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?

    Lacks information about return values, error handling, and what happens on invalid input or malformed files. Without an output schema, the description should cover these aspects.

    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 covers all parameters with descriptions; the description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema for each parameter.

    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 tool extends an existing config file with new build log settings, distinguishing it from sibling tools that generate configurations from scratch.

    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?

    Provides explicit use case (adding platforms/libraries without regeneration) and mentions intelligent merging, but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explains the compilation method per target and that it filters out warnings/hints. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or the format of 'parsed results', leaving gaps.

    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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides critical behavioral details. Every sentence is informative and no redundant words. It is optimally concise.

    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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior and target-specific compilation. It lacks description of return value format and potential error outputs, but the parameter schema is fully documented, so the description is largely complete.

    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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions; it only restates behavior for some parameters implicitly through target distinctions.

    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 specifies the verb 'compile', the resource 'Delphi project (.dpr or .dproj file)', and states that it returns parsed results. It distinguishes behavior by target platform, which adds specificity. The sibling tools have different purposes (config generation), so no confusion.

    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 context on when to use this tool: for compiling Delphi projects. It explains different behavior for Windows vs cross-compilation targets. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or mention of alternatives, though siblings are unrelated.

    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?

    Given no annotations, description carries full burden. It covers default behavior (separate files) and key parameters, but lacks details on file overwriting, error handling, or output structure. Adequate but not rich.

    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 concise sentences: first states purpose and default behavior, second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded with key information, no wasted 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?

    Covers main use case and key behaviors adequately given high schema coverage. Lacks output format details and error behavior, but sufficient for most agents.

    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?

    Input schema descriptions cover all 5 parameters fully (100% coverage). The tool description adds minimal additional context beyond summarizing the schema, so baseline score applies.

    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 identifies the action (generate), resource (delphi_config.toml), and context (from multiple IDE build logs). Differentiates from siblings by specifying 'multiple' configurations and platforms, contrasting with the singular version.

    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?

    Explicitly states when to use: when you have build logs from multiple configurations and/or platforms. Implicitly suggests not using it for single logs (sibling tool). Could be improved by naming alternatives directly.

    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

delphi-build-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

delphi-build-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/Basti-Fantasti/delphi-build-mcp-server'

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