api-mock-sandbox
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct roles: one creates/reconfigures the mock API and the other queries its runtime status. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: setup_mock_api and get_mock_api_status. The style is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count4/5With only two tools, the surface is minimal but arguably appropriate for a focused mock server utility. It feels slightly thin for a full lifecycle but is not unreasonable.
Completeness3/5The set covers setup and status checking, but lacks obvious lifecycle operations like stopping/resetting the server or clearing collections. Agents can work around this, but the surface leaves gaps.
Average 4.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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.jsonto 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
- 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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks running status, port, and collections with item counts, implying a read-only inspection. It does not explicitly say it has no side effects or how errors are handled, but for a status check this is a reasonable level of disclosure. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the bare tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, both purposeful. The first sentence defines what the tool does, and the second gives usage context. There is no filler, and the primary function is front-loaded. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, single sibling), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the information returned, and the appropriate usage context. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it does not, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Checks whether the local mock API is currently running, on which port, and lists its collections with item counts.' It names a specific resource (mock API) and the information it returns, distinguishing it from the sibling setup_mock_api which would be for starting the server rather than inspecting its state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this before assuming setup_mock_api needs to be called, or to confirm the server an Artifact is calling is actually up.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool and frames it as a check before potentially calling the sibling, giving clear decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it succeeds: it discloses disk persistence to sandbox_db.json, idempotent behavior for existing collections, supported HTTP methods, and CORS support. These are exactly the side effects and runtime traits an agent needs to predict tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence earns its place: purpose and motivation, resource definition, persistence semantics, and a precondition. Information is front-loaded with the verbs 'Starts (or reconfigures)' and critical behavior follows immediately. No filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, input shape, endpoint behavior, persistence, reconfiguration semantics, and the sibling tool check. Even without an output schema or annotations, an agent has enough to decide when to call it and how to construct a correct request.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema covers both parameters, the description adds essential meaning: schema keys become collections at /api/<key>, items get auto-generated IDs if missing, and the server exposes full CRUD. This goes beyond the schema by explaining how inputs map to runtime resources and endpoints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: starts/reconfigures a local persistent REST API with CORS support. Clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_mock_api_status by naming it as the check step. The description leaves no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells the agent to call get_mock_api_status before invoking this tool to avoid duplicate setup. It also explains the motivating scenario (state persistence across Artifact refreshes). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the relevant alternative.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md: