OpenXAI MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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 ambiguity. The tools cover different aspects of the OpenXAI ecosystem: explanation generation/evaluation, framework information, data/model management, and leaderboard access. There is no overlap in functionality between tools like 'evaluate_explanation' and 'generate_explanation' or between listing functions and loading functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern using snake_case throughout. The naming convention is predictable with verbs like 'evaluate', 'generate', 'get', 'list', and 'load' consistently paired with appropriate nouns. This makes the tool set easy to understand and navigate.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing access to OpenXAI's explainable AI framework. The count is appropriate as it covers key operations like explanation generation/evaluation, framework information retrieval, dataset/model management, and leaderboard access without being overwhelming or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for interacting with the OpenXAI framework, including explanation workflows, data/model access, and framework information. The only minor gap is the lack of tools for modifying or updating datasets/models (e.g., 'update_model' or 'create_dataset'), but the existing tools cover the core read-oriented operations well for this domain.
Average 3/5 across 11 of 11 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('evaluate') but lacks details on what the evaluation entails (e.g., scoring, validation, output format), whether it's read-only or mutative, performance characteristics, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.
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's front-loaded with the core purpose ('evaluate explanation quality') and specifies the context ('using OpenXAI metrics') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the evaluation process, output format, or behavioral traits. While schema coverage is high, the description fails to compensate for missing context, especially for a tool that likely returns evaluation results.
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 the schema already documents all parameters (metric, explanation, model_info) with descriptions and an enum for 'metric'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or typical values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'evaluate' and the resource 'explanation quality', specifying the domain as 'OpenXAI metrics'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_explanation' (creation vs. evaluation) and 'list_metrics' (listing vs. applying). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'load_dataset' or 'get_leaderboard', which keeps it from a perfect score.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an explanation first), exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like 'list_metrics' (which might list available metrics) or 'generate_explanation' (which might produce explanations to evaluate). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details such as computational requirements, output format, error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves complex model interactions.
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 unnecessary words. It is 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of model explanation tasks, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the explanations look like, how they are returned, or any behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for effective tool use.
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, clearly documenting all three parameters and their purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.
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 ('Generate explanations') and the resource ('model predictions using OpenXAI explainers'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'evaluate_explanation' or 'list_explainers', which would require more specific scope definition to achieve a perfect score.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to siblings like 'evaluate_explanation' or 'list_explainers', leaving the agent without usage direction.
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 tool provides 'step-by-step guidance', implying it's informational and likely read-only, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or text, or any other behavioral traits. This leaves significant gaps 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance, and there's no wasted text.
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 doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., text guidance, structured steps, or links), potential errors, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that provides guidance, more context on output format and usage would be helpful to compensate for the missing structured data.
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, with the parameter 'deployment_type' fully documented in the schema (including enum values). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the differences between deployment types or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.
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 as 'Get step-by-step guidance for deploying models using OpenXAI Studio', which specifies the action (get guidance), resource (deployment), and context (OpenXAI Studio). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_framework_info' or 'list_models', which might also provide related information but for different aspects.
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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'get_framework_info' or 'list_models', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get information') without explaining what information is returned, format details, rate limits, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with behavioral implications.
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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.
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 doesn't explain the return values or behavioral traits, which are crucial for understanding how to use the tool effectively. This gap makes it insufficient for the tool's complexity.
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, including an enum for 'info_type', so the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or context for the enum values, resulting in a baseline score.
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 the resource 'information about OpenXAI framework', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_deployment_guide' or 'get_leaderboard' that also retrieve framework-related information, which prevents a perfect score.
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 doesn't mention scenarios for choosing this over siblings like 'get_deployment_guide' or 'list_datasets', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.
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. It states the tool retrieves results but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated data, or what format the leaderboard results take. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns structured ranking data.
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's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the leaderboard results include (e.g., rankings, scores, methods), how they're structured, or any behavioral context. For a tool with two parameters and likely complex output, this leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent use.
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 the schema already documents both parameters ('dataset' and 'metric') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid datasets or metrics, or how they affect the leaderboard. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: 'Get leaderboard results for explanation methods'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('leaderboard results'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_metrics' or 'list_explainers' by focusing on ranked results. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'evaluate_explanation' might also involve ranking).
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from siblings like 'evaluate_explanation' or 'list_metrics'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context 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. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, potential rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.
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 low complexity (one optional parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, output details, or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use the tool effectively without additional inference.
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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage and an enum for 'method_type', the schema fully documents the parameter. The description doesn't explain the meaning of 'explanation methods' or the filter options, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('List') and resource ('available explanation methods in OpenXAI'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'evaluate_explanation' or 'generate_explanation' by focusing on listing rather than evaluating or generating, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_datasets', 'list_models', or 'list_metrics' beyond the resource type.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context for filtering, or relationships with sibling tools like 'get_framework_info' or 'get_deployment_guide' that might provide related information. Usage is implied only by the tool name and purpose.
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 'load' but doesn't explain what that entails—e.g., whether it returns data, loads into memory, requires internet for download, or has side effects like caching. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.
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 doesn't cover what the tool returns (e.g., a dataset object, file path, or status), error conditions, or behavioral details like download behavior. For a tool that likely involves data retrieval and potential network operations, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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, with clear parameter details (e.g., dataset_name examples, download default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining dataset formats or download implications. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'load' and the resource 'a specific dataset from OpenXAI', which makes the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_datasets' (which likely lists available datasets) or 'load_model' (which loads models rather than datasets), missing an opportunity for full sibling distinction.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., dataset availability), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'list_datasets' (which might be needed first to see available datasets). This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe what 'loading' entails (e.g., whether it returns a model object, loads into memory, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves network calls). For a tool that presumably loads complex ML models, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters documented elsewhere, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.
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?
For a tool that loads ML models with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (model object? success status?), doesn't address error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of ML model loading and absence of annotations/output schema, the description should do more to help the agent understand what to expect.
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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify what happens when 'pretrained' is false. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
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 ('Load') and resource ('a pre-trained model from OpenXAI'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_models' or 'load_dataset', which would require mentioning this is for loading specific model instances rather than listing available models or loading data.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'list_models' or 'load_dataset'. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and parameters 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—such as whether it returns a paginated list, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably returns a list of datasets.
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 fluff or redundancy. It is 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 (one optional parameter with full schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't provide enough context about behavior or output to be fully complete, especially without annotations to fill in 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, including an enum for the 'category' parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter well. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior when no category is specified, which aligns with the baseline score 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 ('List') and resource ('available datasets in OpenXAI framework'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_dataset' or 'list_models', which would be needed for a perfect score.
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 like 'load_dataset' or 'list_models'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't cover aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format might be (e.g., list structure, pagination).
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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a simple list tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about the tool's role in the broader system (e.g., how metrics relate to other tools like 'evaluate_explanation'). It doesn't fully leverage the opportunity to guide usage in this complex domain.
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 has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single optional parameter with its enum values. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.
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 ('List') and resource ('available evaluation metrics in OpenXAI'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_datasets' or 'list_explainers' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, related tools like 'evaluate_explanation' or 'get_leaderboard', or any context for filtering metrics, leaving usage unclear.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits: no information about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
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?
For a simple listing tool with 2 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't address behavioral aspects or return values. It's adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps in operational context that would help an agent use the tool effectively.
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 the schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions and an enum for model_type. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'pre-trained models' means in context or provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 ('List') and resource ('available pre-trained models in OpenXAI'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_datasets', 'list_explainers', or 'list_metrics', which all follow the same 'list [resource]' pattern without indicating what distinguishes model listing from other listing operations.
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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over other listing tools (like list_datasets), or any context about OpenXAI that would help an agent determine appropriate usage scenarios. The agent must infer usage from 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.

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:

[![mcpopenxAI MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Cappybara12/mcpopenxAI/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Cappybara12/mcpopenxAI)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcpopenxAI MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Cappybara12/mcpopenxAI/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Cappybara12/mcpopenxAI)

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/Cappybara12/mcpopenxAI'

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