Skip to main content
Glama
DMontgomery40

Meta MCP Server

by DMontgomery40
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as writing MCP server files based on user discussions, making it distinct by default.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool name 'write_mcp_server' follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (write + mcp_server). Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations to assess.

    Tool Count2/5

    One tool is too few for a server named 'Meta MCP Server', which implies a broader scope or meta-level functionality. A single tool feels thin and limited, suggesting the server might be underdeveloped or narrowly focused beyond typical expectations.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a meta-level server. It only provides a write function without any complementary tools for reading, updating, deleting, or managing MCP servers, creating significant gaps that will hinder agent workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 1 of 1 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

  • 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool writes files, implying a mutation operation, but does not address permissions, error handling, file overwriting behavior, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

    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 is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity, with no wasted information.

    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 (file writing with nested array parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects, error cases, or detailed usage, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

    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 50% (only 'outputDir' has a description), and the description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'files' generally but does not explain the structure or usage of the 'files' array. The baseline is 3 due to moderate schema coverage, but the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 'files' parameter.

    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 ('write files') and the target ('for an MCP server'), specifying the purpose as file creation based on user discussion. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings, but since there are no sibling tools, this is not a deficiency.

    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 minimal guidance by mentioning 'based on our discussion with the user,' which implies usage context but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. With no sibling tools, the lack of comparative guidance is less critical, but overall guidance remains vague.

    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

meta-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

meta-mcp-server 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/DMontgomery40/meta-mcp-server'

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