Skip to main content
Glama
DCSTOLF

Harpyja

by DCSTOLF
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: building an index, locating relevant files/lines, and reading code snippets. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'harpyja_' prefix followed by a single verb (index, locate, read), ensuring predictability.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 3 tools, the surface is minimal but well-scoped for the server's focused purpose of code indexing and retrieval. Slightly low, but not inappropriate.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the core workflow of building an index, searching, and reading code. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no directory listing), but it's sufficient for the intended use case.

  • Average 2.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

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

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

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

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

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

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only implies deterministic behavior via 'deterministic ripgrep', but omits critical traits like side effects, authentication needs, or performance characteristics.

    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?

    The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this underinformativeness harms usability. It is not front-loaded with critical details; it sacrifices completeness 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?

    Given the absence of annotations, low schema coverage, and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not explain return values (though output schema exists) or compare with siblings.

    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%, yet the description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (mode, query, repo_path, max_results, language_hint). The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema itself.

    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 finds files/lines relevant to a query, using the specific verb 'Find' and resource 'files/lines'. The mention 'Tier 0: deterministic ripgrep' adds technical context but does not differentiate from sibling tools like harpyja_index or harpyja_read.

    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 lacks context for appropriate invocation scenarios, such as when to prefer locate over index or read.

    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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that ripgrep is not required, which is a minor benefit. It does not disclose whether the operation is safe, destructive, idempotent, or what side effects (e.g., overwriting files) occur. The refresh parameter is mentioned but not explained in terms of behavior.

    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 very short—one sentence. It front-loads the core purpose. There is no fluff, but the extreme brevity borders on under-specification. Still, it is appropriately concise for the limited content.

    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 an output schema and two parameters, the description needs to provide context on the index/manifest concept, prerequisites (e.g., repo_path validity), and when refreshing is needed. It lacks this context. The sibling tool names (locate, read) hint at a search context, but the description does not connect them.

    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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It fails to mention either 'repo_path' or 'refresh'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantics beyond what the schema provides.

    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 states 'Build/refresh the manifest for a repo', which clearly identifies the action (build/refresh) and the target (manifest for a repo). The sibling tools are locate and read, which are different operations, so the purpose is distinct. However, the phrase 'Build/refresh' is somewhat ambiguous—it could imply two modes or a combined action, but overall it 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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The line 'No ripgrep required' hints at a lightweight alternative but does not specify scenarios or prerequisites. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

    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 bears full responsibility. It only states what the tool returns, with no mention of side effects, permissions, idempotency, or other behavioral traits.

    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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative while remaining 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 the tool has 4 required parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return format, error conditions, or usage examples.

    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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the parameters. It hints at 'bounded' and 'path-confined', but does not clarify that start and end likely refer to line numbers or offsets.

    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 that the tool returns a bounded code snippet confined to a path, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes the read operation from sibling tools like harpyja_index and harpyja_locate.

    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 implies reading code snippets, but does not explicate when to choose harpyja_read over harpyja_index or harpyja_locate.

    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

harpyja MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

harpyja 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/DCSTOLF/harpyja'

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