Skip to main content
Glama
Bigsy

Clojars-MCP-Server

by Bigsy
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: checking version existence, retrieving version history, and getting the latest version. The descriptions make it unambiguous what each tool does, and an agent would have no difficulty selecting the right tool for each specific query about Clojars dependencies.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get' or 'check' verbs and descriptive nouns like 'clojars_version_exists', 'clojars_history', and 'clojars_latest_version'. The naming is uniform, predictable, and uses snake_case throughout, making it easy for agents to understand and work with.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a dependency management domain, as it lacks basic operations like searching for dependencies, listing available artifacts, or fetching dependency metadata beyond version info. While the tools are well-defined, the count is borderline low for the apparent scope of interacting with Clojars.

    Completeness2/5

    There are significant gaps in the tool surface for a Clojars server. Missing are essential operations such as searching for dependencies, retrieving artifact details (e.g., authors, licenses), or managing dependencies (e.g., adding/removing). The current tools only cover version-related queries, leaving agents unable to perform common dependency management tasks, which will likely cause failures in broader workflows.

  • Average 3/5 across 3 of 3 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 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the version history is returned in. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

    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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no space on redundant details.

    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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context about what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or operational constraints. For a tool that presumably returns structured version history data, more context would be helpful.

    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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain the dependency format further or provide additional context about the limit parameter. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

    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 description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('version history of a Clojars dependency'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_clojars_latest_version' (which returns only the latest version) or 'check_clojars_version_exists' (which checks existence of a specific version).

    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 its siblings. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between 'get_clojars_history', 'get_clojars_latest_version', or 'check_clojars_version_exists'.

    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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but does not describe traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

    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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse.

    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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits, output format, or usage context, which are essential for an agent to effectively invoke this tool. The high schema coverage is insufficient to compensate for these gaps.

    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 has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single parameter 'dependency' with format examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

    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 description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('latest version of a Clojars dependency'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_clojars_version_exists' or 'get_clojars_history', which likely serve related but distinct purposes.

    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 does not mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

    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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a safe lookup, what happens on failure (e.g., error handling), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description is too minimal for a mutation-free tool with 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.

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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?

    Given the tool's low complexity (simple lookup with two parameters) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on return values (e.g., boolean, error messages) or behavioral context, leaving gaps for the agent.

    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 has 100% description coverage, fully documenting both parameters (dependency and version) with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.

    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 description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('specific version of a Clojars dependency'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its siblings (get_clojars_history and get_clojars_latest_version), which would require a 5.

    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 its siblings or alternatives. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no contextual direction for tool selection.

    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

Clojars-MCP-Server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Clojars-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/Bigsy/Clojars-MCP-Server'

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