Skip to main content
Glama
ClydeLemot

Claude Code Directive MCP

by ClydeLemot
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 function: enabling, checking status, or disabling the directive. No overlap in purposes.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent `claude_directive_` prefix with verb_noun pattern (enable, status, disable), making them easily identifiable.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is exactly right for managing a lifecycle (create/read/delete) of a single directive; compact and well-scoped.

    Completeness5/5

    The set covers the full lifecycle: enabling (create/update), checking status (read), and disabling (delete). No obvious gaps for the stated domain.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists what is reported but does not disclose side effects or permissions. As a status tool, it is likely read-only, but that is not stated.

    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 one sentence front-loaded with the main purpose. It is efficient, but missing parameter information reduces usability.

    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 output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context. It lists report topics but does not describe the output format or how parameters affect the result.

    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 does not explain the two boolean parameters (runClaudeTest, includeClaudeCheck). No meaning is added 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 reports various statuses like Codex homes, AGENTS files, directive markers, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools (enable/disable). However, it does not explicitly say 'status' is retrieved, but it's implied.

    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 the enable/disable siblings. Instructions for context or prerequisites are absent.

    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 behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'context guardrails and scheduled cleanup' but does not detail specifics like effect on existing directives, destructiveness, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not transparent beyond the core function.

    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, 25-word sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It conveys essential information without verbosity, though it could be better 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 (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It omits parameter meanings, return behavior, and detailed effect of the directive, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

    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?

    Only 8% schema coverage (expiresAt has a description); the description does not explain any of the 13 parameters. Terms like 'context guardrails' and 'cleanup' hint at some parameters but add no concrete meaning. The description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

    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 enables or updates a global temporary directive for using Claude Code, specifying the action (enable/update), resource (directive), and key constraints (expiry, guardrails, cleanup). It distinguishes from sibling tools claude_directive_status (status check) and claude_directive_disable (disable).

    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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (status, disable). It implies the tool is for enabling a temporary directive, but lacks when-not-to-use criteria or alternative scenarios.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses two key behaviors (removal of directive block and disabling of cleanup scheduler), but does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or what happens to the directive manifest.

    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 conveys core functionality without repetition or filler. Every word adds value.

    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 a boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the dryRun parameter, return values, or side effects. More detail is needed for safe and correct usage.

    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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the only parameter 'dryRun'. The agent is left to infer its meaning from the name alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

    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 ('Remove') and the resource ('active temporary Claude Code directive block'), and mentions additional behavior ('disable the one-time cleanup scheduler'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings 'claude_directive_enable' (opposite action) and 'claude_directive_status' (status check).

    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 when to use (when needing to disable a temporary directive), but does not explicitly state when to use compared to alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or context is given.

    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

claude-code-directive-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

claude-code-directive-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/ClydeLemot/claude-code-directive-mcp'

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