bitacora-mcp

by Bidcomsrl

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

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 targets a distinct resource and action: create, update, get, list_versions, list, rollback, deploy, and get_deployment. The boundaries are clear, e.g., presentation_get for content vs presentation_get_deployment for deployment status.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the presentation_verb pattern consistently, using straightforward verbs like create, update, get, list, rollback, deploy. Even sub-actions like list_versions and get_deployment maintain the pattern.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for a presentation management service with versioning and deployment. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The lifecycle is well covered with create, read, update, versioning, rollback, and deployment. The only notable gap is the absence of a delete/purge operation for presentations, which agents might need for full lifecycle management.
Average 4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 37 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
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the returned fields, which gives some context, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention permissions or error conditions. The name 'get' suggests safety, but it is not explicit.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It states exactly what is returned with no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the return fields and clear purpose. It could mention edge cases (e.g., no deployment yet), but is largely complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 schema already fully describes the only parameter 'id' with 'ID del deck.' The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies given high schema coverage.
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 returns the current deployment state of a presentation, listing specific fields (commit, scriptId, deploymentId, url). This specific verb and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like presentation_deploy or presentation_get.
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 when to use this tool (to check deployment status) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. No clear guidance on choosing between this and presentation_get or presentation_list_versions.
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 are provided, and the description only mentions listing and optional filtering. It does not disclose return format, pagination, sorting, or side effects. Since it is a read-only list operation, the lack of detail is somewhat acceptable, but the burden is on the description and it falls short of full 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and filter. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core function and filter, but it does not clarify whether the response contains full presentation objects or summaries, or if pagination applies. These minor gaps prevent a perfect score, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward list operation.
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 schema already documents the single 'owner' parameter at 100% coverage with a description ('Filtrar por dueño (opcional)'). The tool description merely repeats this optional filter without adding any new semantic detail, so it adds no value beyond the 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 ('Lista las presentaciones guardadas') and the resource (presentations). The optional owner filter is mentioned, and the scope 'guardadas' distinguishes it from version-listing or other operations.
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 usage is implied by the verb 'Lista' and the mention of an optional owner filter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as presentation_get or presentation_list_versions. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states idempotency by version and the behavior of returning the existing URL without redeploying. This adds meaningful context about side effects and repeatability.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and result, then adds the idempotency behavior. Perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and output (URL), which is sufficient for a simple deploy action. No output schema exists, but the URL return is stated. It lacks error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a clear 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides for the 'version' and 'id' parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Publica') and resource ('una presentación como web app de Apps Script'), clearly stating the action and return value (URL). It distinguishes from siblings like presentation_get_deployment and presentation_rollback by focusing on the deployment action.
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 (to publish a version as a web app) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like presentation_get_deployment or presentation_rollback. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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 carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains default HEAD behavior, historical version retrieval, and return content (HTML and metadata), which is useful. However, it does not specify what 'metadata' includes, error behavior for invalid IDs/SHAs, or any authentication/permission requirements, 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 concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding the version-specific behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler or redundancy.
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 low complexity (two params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the primary purpose, return type, and version selection behavior. It could be more complete by detailing the metadata structure or error conditions, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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% because both id and version have descriptions in the input schema. The description largely repeats the version param semantics already present in the schema ('SHA', 'HEAD'), adding minimal extra meaning beyond what the structured schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Devuelve') and a clear resource ('el HTML y la metadata de una presentación'), while also distinguishing version behavior (HEAD vs a historical SHA). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like presentation_list_versions, which lists versions, and presentation_get_deployment, which fetches deployment 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?
The description states when to use the version parameter: omit it for the current HEAD, or provide a SHA for a historical version. It gives clear context, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives among the sibling tools.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the operation is non-destructive and creates a new commit, which is crucial behavioral information that prevents misinterpretation. However, it lacks details on required permissions, side effects on deployments, or handling of invalid version SHAs, which would elevate it further.
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 sentence that front-loads the main action and efficiently adds the key behavioral detail (non-destructive new commit). There is no redundant information or unnecessary padding.
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 rollback tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the operation's essence and safety profile. It explains the mechanism (creating a new commit) and the non-destructive nature, which is the core context needed. It could mention prerequisites like a valid commit SHA, but that is not critical given the schema.
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 fully describes both required parameters (id and version), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, mentioning only 'contenido' without elaborating on parameter formats or relationships. Baseline of 3 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: reverting a presentation to a previous version by creating a new commit, which also distinguishes it from destructive rollbacks and from direct updates like presentation_update. The verb 'Vuelve' and the mechanism 'creando un nuevo commit' make the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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 non-destructive rollback but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools (e.g., presentation_update, presentation_list_versions) or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It offers context (non-destructive) but no exclusionary or alternative references, so usage is implied rather than stated.
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 are provided, so the description must convey that this is a read-only operation. The verb 'Lista' implies no mutation, and the ordering is disclosed. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or require any permissions, leaving some ambiguity.
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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Lista'. It is concise and contains no filler, 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.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, input resource, and ordering of results. It does not need to detail return values for a straightforward list operation, especially given the schema covers the input.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter with a description 'ID del deck.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists version history (commits) of a presentation, with a specific ordering (newest to oldest). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like presentation_get or presentation_list, which serve different purposes.
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 clear context: it is used to retrieve the commit history of a specific presentation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the presentation is saved versioned (implying each call creates a new version/commit) and not published, and it returns id and commit SHA. This adds value beyond the schema, though it omits details like authentication requirements.
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 one concise sentence that front-loads the main action, includes the key boundary (no deploy), and states the return value. Every phrase earns its place with no redundant wording.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the essential return values (id and commit SHA) and the phase distinction. It could further clarify handling of duplicate titles, but 'versionada' strongly implies new-version creation, making it sufficiently 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% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters (e.g., html can be a full document or fragment). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 creates an HTML presentation and saves it versioned in the store. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling presentation_deploy by stating 'No la publica (deploy es Fase 2)', making the scope unambiguous.
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 gives clear context: it creates and versions, and notably excludes deployment by mentioning deploy is Phase 2. This implies when to use this tool versus deploy, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like presentation_update for modifying existing presentations.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds significant context by explaining that the update creates a new version and 'No borra el historial' (does not delete history), which is crucial non-destructive behavior. While it doesn't mention return values or auth, it covers the most important behavioral aspect for an update tool.
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, concise sentence that leads with the main action ('Actualiza'), then explains the key behavior (creates a new version) and a critical guarantee (does not delete history). Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important 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?
The tool is relatively simple with 4 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema. The description provides enough behavioral context (versioning, history preservation) and parameter clarity. It could mention what the tool returns, but this is not critical for a mutation tool, and the description is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds value by explicitly stating that it 'reemplaza HTML y/o metadata' (replaces HTML and/or metadata), clarifying that the 'html' parameter and metadata fields (tags, title) are the ones affected. This gives the agent a better understanding of how the parameters are grouped and applied.
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 uses the specific verb 'Actualiza' (updates) with the resource 'presentación existente' (existing presentation), and specifies the scope by stating it replaces HTML and/or metadata. It also distinguishes itself from a simple overwrite by noting it creates a new version, which sets it apart from direct update semantics.
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 the tool is for modifying existing presentations by creating a new version, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like presentation_rollback or presentation_deploy. There is no direct exclusion or naming of alternative tools, so the guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.
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:

[![bitacora-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Bidcomsrl/bitacora-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Bidcomsrl/bitacora-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bitacora-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Bidcomsrl/bitacora-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Bidcomsrl/bitacora-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/Bidcomsrl/bitacora-mcp'

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