Skip to main content
Glama
ConsentirDev

BuyICT MCP Server

by ConsentirDev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
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: get_opportunity_details retrieves details for a specific opportunity, list_marketplaces provides available procurement types, and search_opportunities finds opportunities with filters. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_opportunity_details, list_marketplaces, and search_opportunities. The verbs (get, list, search) are appropriate and uniformly applied, creating a predictable naming convention.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a procurement domain that might require more operations like creating or updating opportunities. While the tools cover basic retrieval and listing, the count is borderline minimal for the apparent scope of a procurement server.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is significantly incomplete for a procurement domain. It lacks essential CRUD operations such as create_opportunity, update_opportunity, or delete_opportunity, and does not include tools for managing bids or submissions. This will likely cause agent failures in full procurement workflows.

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

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with two required parameters.

    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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance, which is ideal 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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, the response format, or any behavioral traits like safety or performance. For a tool that retrieves data with specific parameters, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the input schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'opportunity_id' and 'table' or providing examples. This meets the baseline 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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific opportunity'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'search_opportunities' which might also retrieve opportunity details, missing the specificity 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 'search_opportunities' or 'list_marketplaces'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific opportunity ID, and doesn't mention any exclusions or recommended scenarios for usage.

    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 searches for opportunities but doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by 'page' and 'page_size' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search results look like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 the complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how results are structured, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively. The high schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and output context.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filters', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples beyond what's in the parameter descriptions.

    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 ('Search for procurement opportunities') and the target resource ('on BuyICT'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_opportunity_details' or 'list_marketplaces' beyond the 'search' action, so it lacks sibling differentiation 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 mentions 'optional filters' which implies some context for usage, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_opportunity_details' or 'list_marketplaces'. No exclusions or specific scenarios are outlined, 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. It states a read operation ('Get list') but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It could be slightly more structured by front-loading key details, but it's appropriately concise for a simple tool.

    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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the return values or behavioral context, which is a gap since there's no output schema to compensate.

    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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, this is acceptable, and the baseline score is 4 as per the rules for 0-param tools.

    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 resource ('list of available marketplaces/procurement types'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_opportunities' or 'get_opportunity_details', 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 like 'search_opportunities' or 'get_opportunity_details'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, 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.

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

buyict.mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

buyict.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/ConsentirDev/buyict.mcp'

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