Skip to main content
Glama
DanielRamosAcosta

NixOS MCP Server

by DanielRamosAcosta
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one searches for NixOS configuration options, while the other searches for Nix packages. There is no overlap in functionality, and the descriptions explicitly differentiate between options (with types, defaults) and packages (with versions, maintainers).

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'search_' as the prefix, followed by the specific domain ('nixos_options' and 'nix_packages'). The naming is predictable and adheres to snake_case throughout, making it easy to understand the tool's purpose at a glance.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for a domain as broad as NixOS/Nix package management. While the tools cover searching for options and packages, there are likely many other operations (e.g., installing packages, managing configurations) that are missing, making the toolset under-scoped for the apparent purpose.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for a NixOS/Nix package management server. It only provides search functionality, with no tools for CRUD operations like installing packages, updating configurations, or managing system states. This creates significant gaps that will hinder agents from performing common workflows in this domain.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

  • This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what the tool returns (packages with versions, descriptions, maintainers) but lacks important behavioral details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or error conditions. The description provides basic output information but misses key operational context.

    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 extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and return values. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by output details.

    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?

    For a search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and output information. However, it lacks important context about behavioral traits, error handling, and usage guidelines. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting structured data.

    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 fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions searching 'by query' which aligns with the 'query' parameter but doesn't provide additional semantic context. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

    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's purpose: 'Search for Nix packages by query' with the verb 'search' and resource 'Nix packages'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_nixos_options' by specifying packages rather than options. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling differentiation in the text itself.

    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. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'search_nixos_options' or any other potential alternatives. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

    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 mentions the return format ('matching options with their types, defaults, and descriptions'), which is helpful, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether the search is case-sensitive. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

    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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return values. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

    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 moderate complexity (search with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and error handling. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

    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 no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain query syntax, pagination behavior, or result ordering. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 specific action ('Search for NixOS configuration options'), the resource ('NixOS configuration options'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_nix_packages' by specifying it's about configuration options rather than packages. It's precise and unambiguous.

    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. While it implicitly suggests using it for searching NixOS options, there's no explicit mention of when not to use it or what other tools might be better for related tasks. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

    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

nixos-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

nixos-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/DanielRamosAcosta/nixos-mcp'

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