Skip to main content
Glama
DappierAI

Dappier MCP Server

Official
by DappierAI
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

75%
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 fetches AI recommendations with various data models, the other performs real-time search. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools share the 'dappier_' prefix and use descriptive noun phrases ('ai_recommendations', 'real_time_search'), though the first uses underscores between words and the second uses a more compound adjective form, leading to minor inconsistency.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is very focused. For a purpose-built API covering recommendations and search, this number is reasonable though minimal. Slightly under the typical 3-15 range but not drastically.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers its stated domains (recommendations and real-time search) adequately, but lacks tools for managing data models or retrieving raw content. It's sufficient for basic use but leaves out potential CRUD operations.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output as a 'formatted summary including article titles, summaries, images, source URLs, publication dates, and relevance scores,' which is helpful. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects, which would be expected for a tool with no annotations.

    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 starts with a clear purpose and organizes data models with bullet points, but it is somewhat verbose by repeating model information that is also in the schema. It is front-loaded but could be more concise, as every sentence earns its place but some repetition exists.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given six parameters, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the output format and each data model's domain, covering the core functionality. It could be more complete by briefly explaining how ref, num_articles_ref, search_algorithm, and similarity_top_k affect results, but the schema handles those sufficiently.

    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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming and explaining data model IDs (e.g., 'Sports News: Real-time news...'), but these details are already present in the schema's description for data_model_id. Other parameters like ref, query, and search_algorithm are not elaborated beyond the schema, so the description provides minimal additional meaning.

    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 'Fetch AI-powered recommendations from Dappier by processing the provided query with a selected data model,' which identifies the verb (fetch recommendations) and resource (Dappier data models). It distinguishes the tool from the sibling dappier_real_time_search by emphasizing recommendations with tailored content, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies usage by listing data models and their domains (e.g., Sports News, Lifestyle News), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the sibling or provide conditions for use. It lacks exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer context.

    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 must disclose behaviors. It mentions that an AI model is selected based on ai_model_id and returns results, but it does not address side effects, permissions, rate limits, error handling, or return structure. This is insufficient for full transparency.

    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 concise, well-structured into two paragraphs, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

    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 no output schema, no annotations, and two distinct models, the description lacks details on return format, error scenarios, and guidance on model selection. It is incomplete for effective agent use.

    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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no meaningful new information beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline without enhancement.

    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 'Retrieve real-time search data from Dappier' and distinguishes between two specific capabilities (web search and stock market data) using model IDs. The tool name and description differentiate it from the sibling tool 'dappier_ai_recommendations' by focusing on real-time data retrieval.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description lists two use cases but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus the sibling tool. It implies usage context through capabilities but lacks direct instructions or exclusions.

    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

dappier-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

dappier-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/DappierAI/dappier-mcp'

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