ChampCity GPT MCP Launcher

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct domain or action: Figma-related tools are clearly separate from git, file, and workspace/release status tools. Even within similar categories (e.g., multiple get_*_summary tools), each refers to a different entity (builder report, release artifact, etc.), so there is no ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as fetch_, get_, git_, list_, parse_, propose_, read_, search_, test_, and pre_commit_safety_scan. The style is uniform, making it easy for an agent to predict tool names.
Tool Count4/5
With 19 tools, the server covers multiple areas (Figma, git, files, workspace, releases, scanning) without feeling bloated. While slightly above the ideal range, each tool appears justified for the launcher's intended scope.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface is notably read-only; there are no tools for writing files, committing, pushing, or applying patches (despite propose_patch referencing an apply_approved_patch, which is absent). This leaves significant gaps for full workflows, though it may be intentional for a review-only launcher.
Average 3.2/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 16, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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 provided, so description must convey behavior. It mentions path, file, binary, and size checks but does not explain what happens on failure, binary rejection, or permissions. Vague on error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but at the expense of clarity. It could be expanded to provide necessary context without becoming verbose.
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 with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, error behavior, or how to appropriately invoke the tool. Sibling tools like list_project_files suggest context but not covered.
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 adds minimal semantic value beyond schema. Only root is described as 'Absolute configured allowed root.' No explanation of relativePath format or maxBytes (e.g., truncation vs error). Schema coverage is low (33%), so description should compensate.
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 reads a text file from an allowed root with specific checks, distinguishing it from listing or searching siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like list_project_files or search_project_files.
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 vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description lacks context on proper invocation scenarios.
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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'read-only' which is helpful, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as network calls, permissions, or side effects. The description is too sparse.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words. However, it may be too concise, sacrificing clarity for brevity.
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?
With no output schema, minimal parameter descriptions, and no usage context, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine the return format, the meaning of 'status', or how to interpret 'root'. More detail is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 50% (root described, targetBranch not). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For targetBranch, the enum provides context, but the description does not explain its purpose relative to the tool.
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 returns a read-only commit/push readiness status. It distinguishes from siblings like git_diff or get_change_set_readiness_summary by focusing on commit readiness. However, it could be more specific about what the status encompasses.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It states it returns a 'compact metadata summary' and requires a token/OAuth, but omits details on side effects (likely read-only), rate limits, or what the summary includes. More behavioral context is needed for a tool with zero annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with essential purpose. Every word adds value. Perfectly concise.
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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the metadata summary contains and how maxFrames influences the result. Without this, the tool is incomplete for correct invocation and interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 2 parameters (fileKey, maxFrames) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain either parameter or how they affect behavior. 'Compact metadata summary' does not clarify the role of maxFrames, leaving agents without semantic understanding.
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 action (Fetch), resource (Figma file), and scope (compact metadata summary). It also mentions authentication requirements (locally configured token, OAuth files.read). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_figma_status or parse_figma_url.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_figma_status or parse_figma_url. It mentions OAuth requirements but no context on when not to use or which sibling is better suited.
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?
States it does not modify files or state, but no annotations provided. Lacks details on required permissions, rate limits, or what the summary includes.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key info. No unnecessary words.
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?
No output schema, and description does not explain what the summary contains or how to interpret it. Missing context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameters (workspaceId, targetBranch) at all, leaving their purpose unclear.
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?
Description clearly states it returns a sanitized change set readiness summary and is read-only. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_commit_readiness or get_workspace_status_summary.
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?
Only says 'Read-only', which hints at non-destructive use, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites.
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?
Description explicitly declares read-only behavior and lists what it does not modify (repository files, git state, release state, configuration). However, it omits details on auth requirements, error handling, or what happens if the version is not found. With no annotations, the description partially but not fully compensates.
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?
Two concise sentences, no redundancy. All information is front-loaded and clearly stated.
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 two parameters with no descriptions and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks information on parameter usage, return format, and error scenarios, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (workspaceId, releaseVersion). The agent must infer that releaseVersion is needed from the required field, but no format or constraints are given. WorkspaceId is not mentioned at all.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'returns' and resource 'sanitized release artifact summary' for a requested version, and specifies it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_release_publication_summary, relying on the name for 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without providing context on preferred use cases or exclusion criteria.
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 full burden. It mentions 'byte truncation' and 'allowed root,' hinting at behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has side effects, leaving gaps for the agent.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential function without waste. However, it is slightly too brief, omitting important context.
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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of maxBytes behavior, return value format, and edge cases, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 33% (only root described). The description hints at 'staged' and 'byte truncation' (maxBytes) but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Parameters are not elaborated, leaving the agent to infer their purpose.
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 it returns git diff or git diff --staged for an allowed root with byte truncation. The verb 'Return' is specific, and the tool distinguishes from siblings like git_status. However, it could be more explicit about the resource being git diff for a particular root.
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 (e.g., git_status or other sibling tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
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 but only discloses that contents are not returned. It omits behavioral aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error scenarios (e.g., invalid root), or whether listing is recursive.
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?
Description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and result. Slightly too brief but avoids 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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain how glob filtering works, maxResults limits, or the relationship between root and relativePath, leaving the agent with gaps for correct usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 25% (only root described). The tool description adds 'allowed root or subdirectory' hinting at root/relativePath but does not explain glob patterns or maxResults behavior. Scores low due to insufficient compensation for missing schema descriptions.
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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'files', clarifying the scope under 'allowed root or subdirectory' and distinguishing from siblings like read_project_file by stating 'without returning contents'. This clearly differentiates from similar tools.
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 compared to alternatives like search_project_files or read_project_file. The description only states functionality, not context of use or exclusions.
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?
The description explicitly states the tool does not modify repository files, git state, release state, or configuration, providing good behavioral transparency. However, it does not mention authentication or rate limits, which are relevant for read-only tools.
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 with two sentences, front-loading 'Read-only'. However, it could benefit from brief parameter details without being verbose.
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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits explanations for workspaceId and includeAssets, and does not describe the return value structure beyond 'sanitized summary'.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only hints at tagName ('for a requested tag') but provides no explanation for optional parameters workspaceId and includeAssets. The agent must guess their purpose from names alone.
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 is read-only and returns a sanitized GitHub release publication summary for a requested tag. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling summary tools like get_release_artifact_summary.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions read-only behavior, but does not specify scenarios or exclusions relative to sibling tools.
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?
The description clearly states it is read-only and does not modify repository, git, release, or configuration state. Since no annotations are provided, the description alone carries this burden and does so effectively.
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 with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately address safety concerns. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?
Despite having no output schema and only one parameter, the description lacks detail about what the summary contains, how to interpret it, and how it differs from similar tools. The agent cannot fully judge invocation suitability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameter workspaceId is not described at all. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain its purpose, optionality, or default behavior, leaving the agent without necessary semantic information.
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 uses a specific verb 'get' and resource 'workspace status summary', and clarifies it returns a sanitized summary. It distinguishes minimally from sibling tools by emphasizing it does not modify files, but does not explicitly differentiate from other summary tools like get_builder_report_summary.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions read-only but does not provide context for when it is appropriate or what prerequisites exist.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool performs a read operation (git status) but does not mention safety, error conditions, or permissions. The description is minimal and relies on the user's knowledge of git.
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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action verb. Every word is necessary and contributes to the purpose.
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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality but omits details about the output format (e.g., whether it returns a string, the exact layout). It is adequate but not fully complete.
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 for the only parameter 'root', and the description repeats the concept of 'allowed root' without adding new detail. The description does not enhance understanding beyond 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 tool returns git status --short and the current branch for an allowed root, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like git_diff, though the purpose is clear.
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 such as git_diff or other status tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
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 carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and lists systems not modified (repository files, git state, release state, configuration), providing valuable safety assurances beyond the tool's name.
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 with two clear sentences. It efficiently communicates the tool's nature and safety profile, though it could be improved by briefly noting parameter dependencies without becoming verbose.
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?
The description is incomplete given the context: five optional parameters with no guidance, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. It does not explain how to specify a report or what the summary contains, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the five parameters (maxChars, reportPath, workCardId, phaseFolder, workspaceId). The agent cannot infer which parameters are needed or how they affect the result.
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 it returns a 'bounded Builder Report preview' from a 'safe report lookup', identifying the resource and action. However, it does not explain what a Builder Report is or what the preview contains, leaving some ambiguity.
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 for retrieving a report summary without modification, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like get_builder_report_index or get_change_set_readiness_summary.
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 carries full burden but only mentions 'limited context' without explaining constraints, error cases, or access requirements. Much behavior is undisclosed.
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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the core action, though 'limited context' could be more specific.
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 with 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse, providing insufficient guidance on parameters and return format.
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?
Schema description coverage is low (20%), and the description adds no meaningful explanation beyond the schema for any of the 5 parameters, leaving glob, maxResults, contextLines unexplained.
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 action (search), resource (text files under an allowed root), and result (line-level matches with limited context), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like list_project_files and read_project_file.
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 for searching text files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.
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 only states that the tool is non-mutating. It does not explain what a 'safety scan' entails, what checks are performed, or what the output/return value looks like. More behavioral details are needed for a scan tool.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return values, prerequisites (e.g., repo setup), or what 'public-repo' implies. Additional context about the scan process would improve completeness.
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 coverage is low (33%). The description adds context by listing the three modes (staged, working-tree, paths) corresponding to the 'mode' enum, but does not elaborate on the 'paths' parameter or the meaning of 'root'. This provides moderate added value beyond the schema.
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 action ('Run public-repo safety scans'), specifies the resource ('staged files, working-tree changes, or selected paths'), and explicitly notes that it does not stage or commit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_diff or git_status.
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 for running safety scans without staging or committing, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools for actual staging or committing.
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?
The description discloses that the tool does not modify files and that the proposal is short-lived. However, with no annotations, it lacks additional behavioral context such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects beyond registration.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word serves a purpose. No 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 presence of required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter details and fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use this tool effectively.
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?
Schema coverage is 50%, but the description adds no explanation of parameters (root and changes) beyond what is in the schema. The description does not clarify what constitutes a valid root path or the expected format of changes items, leaving ambiguity.
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 generates a unified diff without modifying files and registers a short-lived patch proposal. It also specifies the output can be used by apply_approved_patch, providing a complete purpose and differentiating from sibling tools like git_diff.
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 mentioning the return value is for apply_approved_patch, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like git_diff or pre_commit_safety_scan. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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?
The description explicitly states the tool is read-only and does not modify repository files, git state, release state, or configuration. This provides clear behavioral expectations. With no annotations present, the description adequately covers safety and side-effect 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 exceptionally concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose: first states functionality, second clarifies non-destructive nature. No extraneous information is present.
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?
Despite the tool having 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return value format, the meaning of 'bounded index', or how parameters affect the result. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete for an agent to effectively use the tool without additional guidance.
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 input schema has 4 optional parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no detail about parameter meanings, formats, or constraints. The tool name and description hint at 'workspaceId' but do not elaborate on 'maxResults', 'workCardId', or 'phaseFolder', leaving the agent to guess their purpose.
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 is read-only and returns a bounded Builder Report index for configured workspaces. It also explicitly lists what it does not modify, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools which cover different summaries and statuses.
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 use when needing a bounded Builder Report index for configured workspaces, but does not explicitly instruct when to use or not use this tool over alternatives like get_builder_report_summary. The sibling tools list suggests differentiation, but no direct comparison is provided.
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 implicitly suggests the tool is safe (no secrets exposed) and is a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, no destructive actions, or authentication requirements. The single behavioral trait is useful but incomplete.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds a key constraint (without exposing secrets) efficiently. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and a simple purpose, the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks detail about what the status values might be (e.g., 'enabled', 'disabled') and does not mention potential errors or when the status might be unavailable, which would be helpful for an agent.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none exists, but it appropriately implies no parameters are needed. The baseline of 4 is justified.
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 the server-side write-mode status and explicitly mentions it does not expose secrets, which is a specific and actionable verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_workspace_status_summary by focusing on write-mode specifically, though not naming alternatives.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. For a simple status check, some context about its role in workflows would be helpful.
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 covers the main behavior: testing connection, listing resources, and reporting availability. It implies read-only intent and explicitly mentions 'when reachable', but does not detail error handling or side effects.
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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and covers multiple aspects efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately explains input, actions, and part of the output. It could mention return format or error cases, but is sufficient for basic understanding.
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%, with both parameters already described. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 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's purpose: testing the Figma MCP connection, listing available resources, and reporting on Make resource availability. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fetch_figma_file_summary or get_figma_status as a general connectivity test.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only explains functionality, not usage context.
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 partially carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool is non-destructive and doesn't make external calls, but it does not disclose error handling for malformed URLs or outline any constraints on URL format.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action, input, output, and key differentiator (no Figma call).
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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the input type, the extracted fields, and that it operates offline. No additional explanatory text is needed.
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 0%, but the description specifies the accepted URL types (Figma design/file/proto URL), adding some semantics. However, it does not provide full format details or examples, leaving room for ambiguity.
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?
Description clearly states that it extracts fileKey, normalized nodeId, and urlType from a Figma URL, and notes that it does not call Figma, differentiating it from sibling tools that likely require API calls.
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 local usage (no API call) but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude cases where URL is invalid. No sibling tool is named as an alternative for URL parsing.
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?
Description explicitly states the tool does not expose the token value, which is a key behavioral constraint. However, it lacks details on error handling or behavior when token is missing, though for a simple check this is acceptable.
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, front-loaded with the primary action ('Return whether...'), no unnecessary words. Highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for a simple status check. It could specify the return format (e.g., boolean and source string), but the current description is adequate.
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?
Schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 4. Description adds no 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 whether a local Figma token is configured and its source, specifying a distinct verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fetch_figma_file_summary' by focusing on token configuration status.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before calling other Figma tools). The context is implied but not stated.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/ChampCityChris/ChampCity_GPT_MCP'

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