Skip to main content
Glama
DanielOrtiz0220

nyc-restroom-mcp

by DanielOrtiz0220
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct roles: find_restrooms discovers restrooms by proximity and open status, while get_restroom_status looks up a single restroom's detailed condition. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: find_restrooms and get_restroom_status. This is perfectly predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server sits at the borderline lower end of the scale. The narrow domain could justify it, but the small surface area feels thin compared to typical MCP servers.

    Completeness4/5

    The two tools cover the essential workflow of finding restrooms and checking their status. A few minor gaps exist, such as no way to list all restrooms or filter by amenities, but these are not core dead ends for the stated purpose.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 21 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    The annotations already declare the tool as read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable context beyond this: that only NYC Parks restrooms have inspection data, and others will return 'no_inspection_data'. This clarifies expected behavior in edge cases. No contradiction with 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?

    The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential caveats. There is no fluff or repetition. It efficiently conveys purpose, mode of lookup, and important coverage limitation.

    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?

    This is a simple read-only lookup tool with a well-specified schema. The description covers the main behavior, the search modes, and the critical data-availability caveat. Since there is no output schema, mentioning 'condition ratings' sufficiently indicates the return type. The description is complete for this tool's complexity.

    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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented. The description does not add meaningful new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, aside from restating the two lookup modes (by name or coordinates). It appropriately avoids redundancy, earning the baseline 3.

    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 identifies the tool's function: looking up one specific NYC public restroom by name or nearest coordinates and reporting its most recent condition ratings. The singular focus distinguishes it from sibling tool find_restrooms, which likely handles multiple results. The title reinforces this specific purpose.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies when to use this tool (when you need a single restroom's status, either by name or location). It also clarifies the scope of inspection data (NYC Parks only) and what to expect for other operators. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative find_restrooms or state a 'use this instead of' rule, so it falls short of full guidance.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral details: automatic location detection with fallback to IP, an error condition when location is outside NYC, radius clamping to 5000m, and the conservative handling of unparseable hours for open_now. These go beyond what annotations provide.

    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?

    Three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place, covering location, radius, and open_now behavior without redundancy.

    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?

    Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers parameter behavior, defaults, clamps, error handling, and edge cases for a search tool. It's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

    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 has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, and the description largely reiterates the schema (radius default/clamp, coordinate omission). It adds minor context about IP-based location detection, but overall it doesn't significantly augment the parameter semantics 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 opens with 'Finds operational NYC public restrooms near a given point, sorted by distance ascending' – a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates from sibling get_restroom_status, which targets status of a specific restroom rather than discovery/search.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides clear context on how to use the tool, including optional coordinates for auto-location, radius clamping, and open_now filtering. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling or state when to prefer this over get_restroom_status, but the distinct purpose is implicit.

    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

nyc-restroom-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

nyc-restroom-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/DanielOrtiz0220/nyc-restroom-mcp'

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