Skip to main content
Glama
CastaliaInstitute

imscc-mcp

by CastaliaInstitute
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: building the cartridge, providing documentation, checking environment prerequisites, and supplying an example spec. No overlap exists.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tools share the 'imscc_' prefix, but the naming pattern is not fully consistent: 'build_cartridge' and 'check_environment' are verb_noun, while 'canvas_cc_reference' and 'example_spec' are noun phrases. However, the names are still readable and clearly indicate tool function.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of building IMSCC files. Each tool serves a necessary step in the workflow, and there is no bloat or shortage.

    Completeness4/5

    The toolset covers the core workflow: environment check, reference, example, and build. Minor gaps exist, such as a tool to validate or inspect a built cartridge, but the surface is adequate for the stated purpose.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 4 of 4 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 is failing

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It does not state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or any other behavioral traits beyond pointing to documentation. This leaves the agent uncertain about side effects or safety.

    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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words.

    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?

    Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose as a reference, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its role without additional detail.

    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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (100%), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no param info, but none is needed since there are no parameters.

    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 provides pointers to upstream documentation and explains the IMS CC/Canvas relationship, which distinguishes it from sibling action-oriented tools like imscc_build_cartridge. However, it lacks a specific action verb like 'list' or 'get', reducing clarity slightly.

    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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are listed but no comparison or context is provided for selecting this reference tool over them.

    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 full burden. It discloses prerequisites and output format, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or behavior with missing parameters. It adds some value beyond the 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?

    Three concise sentences, each delivering essential information: purpose, prerequisites, and output. No filler or redundancy.

    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 (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention return value, error conditions, or how the parameters are used to generate the cartridge.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The description does not address any parameters despite 70% schema description coverage. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which already has terse descriptions for most parameters. The tool has 10 parameters with nested objects, so more guidance is needed.

    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 builds a Canvas Common Cartridge (.imscc) using the Ruby canvas_cc gem. It specifies the output type and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (reference, check, example) 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 implies when to use the tool (to create an .imscc file) and mentions prerequisites (Ruby+Bundler and bundle install). It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

    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, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool verifies availability but does not mention whether it modifies state, output format, side effects, or required permissions. This leaves agents uncertain about the tool's behavior.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, precise sentence with no waste. It is well-structured and front-loads the action and target.

    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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It adequately states the check but lacks details on output format or behavior, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

    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 input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. Baseline is 4, and the description adds no further parameter information, which 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 verifies availability of Ruby, Bundler, and canvas_cc from a specific directory. It uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('availability'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like imscc_build_cartridge.

    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 when checking environment dependencies but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions to avoid.

    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 accurately indicates a read-only, side-effect-free operation by stating 'returns an example'. It does not disclose more details, but the nature of returning static data is inherently transparent.

    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?

    Single sentence that front-loads the action and purpose with no wasted words.

    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?

    Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple task, the description fully explains what the tool does and how to use it in context of sibling tools.

    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?

    No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter info, but none is needed.

    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 a JSON example and explicitly links it to imscc_build_cartridge, distinguishing it from sibling tools like imscc_build_cartridge (which likely creates) and imscc_check_environment (which checks environment).

    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 implies usage before imscc_build_cartridge to get a template, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or provide alternative tools. It gives good context but lacks explicit guidance.

    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

imscc_mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

imscc_mcp 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/CastaliaInstitute/imscc_mcp'

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