Skip to main content
Glama
CH-122

MCP Server Demo

by CH-122
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one handles date calculations and retrieval, while the other provides weather information. There is no overlap in functionality, making it impossible to confuse them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'get_current_*' naming pattern, using snake_case and starting with the same verb 'get'. This makes the set predictable and easy to understand.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin and under-scoped for a general-purpose demo. It lacks coverage for common tasks beyond dates and weather, suggesting an incomplete or narrowly focused implementation.

    Completeness2/5

    The server's domain appears to be general utility or information retrieval, but it only covers dates and weather. There are significant gaps, such as time, location, or other common data queries, leaving agents with limited functionality.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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 mentions 'Get weather info' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., temperature, conditions, units), whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), error handling, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

    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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

    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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'weather info' includes in the response, potential errors, or usage constraints. For a tool with such minimal structured data, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it falls short.

    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 the parameter 'city' well-documented in the schema as a required string for city names. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the parameter's purpose ('for a given city'), but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema.

    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 action ('Get weather info') and the target resource ('for a given city'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_current_date', which is a different domain, so it doesn't need sibling differentiation but could be more specific about what 'weather info' includes.

    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 or any contextual prerequisites. It simply states what it does without indicating if it's for current conditions only, if there are limitations (e.g., city availability), or how it relates to other potential weather tools.

    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 describes the tool's behavior in returning dates based on input, but lacks details such as output format (e.g., date string structure), timezone handling, error conditions (e.g., invalid input), or performance aspects. 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.

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core functionality in a single sentence. It efficiently covers key use cases without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it more clearly (e.g., separating conditions), but overall, it's well-sized and avoids waste.

    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 tool's complexity (handling both absolute and relative dates) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., format of the date string), error handling, or any constraints (e.g., supported date ranges). This makes it inadequate for an agent to reliably use the tool without additional context.

    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 the parameter 'date' documented as accepting dates like '2025-05-29' or relative units. The description adds value by clarifying that if no date is provided, it returns the current date, and it lists examples of relative units. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema implies, 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.

    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: to get the current date or calculate relative dates based on user input. It specifies the verb '获取' (get/retrieve) and the resource '日期' (date), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_current_weather', which might be relevant in some contexts.

    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 by stating it handles cases where users provide no date or relative units like '前天' (day before yesterday), '昨天' (yesterday), or '明天' (tomorrow). However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if 'get_current_weather' might also provide date-related info) or mention any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

    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

mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

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/CH-122/mcp-server'

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