Canadian Building Code MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: get_applicable_code determines location-based applicability, get_hierarchy navigates section relationships, get_section retrieves section details, list_codes enumerates available codes, search_code performs keyword searches, set_pdf_path handles PDF integration, and verify_section validates section existence. The descriptions make it unambiguous which tool to use for each task.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_applicable_code, get_hierarchy, get_section, list_codes, search_code, set_pdf_path, and verify_section. The verbs (get, list, search, set, verify) are appropriately chosen for their actions, and the nouns clearly indicate the target resources, creating a predictable and readable naming scheme.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of accessing and navigating Canadian building codes. The count is sufficient to cover core operations like listing, searching, retrieving details, verifying sections, managing hierarchies, handling location applicability, and integrating PDFs, without being overwhelming or sparse. Each tool earns its place in the workflow.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides strong coverage for the domain of building code access and navigation, including listing codes, searching, retrieving section details, verifying existence, and handling hierarchies and location applicability. A minor gap is the lack of update or modification tools, but this is reasonable for a read-only reference server, and the PDF integration via set_pdf_path adds flexibility for text extraction.
Average 3/5 across 7 of 7 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 is passing
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Get details') without explaining what 'details' entail, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as hinting at the type of details retrieved.
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 (a read operation with 2 required parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'details' are returned, how errors are handled, or how it differs from sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context and usage.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('id' and 'code') with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'id' and 'code' or their significance. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details of a specific section' clearly states the action (get) and resource (section), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include and does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_hierarchy' or 'verify_section', which might also retrieve section-related information. This vagueness prevents a higher score.
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. With siblings such as 'get_hierarchy', 'list_codes', and 'search_code', it is unclear if this tool is for retrieving metadata, structural info, or something else. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues, leaving usage ambiguous.
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 states the tool retrieves hierarchical relationships but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or return values, which are critical for a tool that retrieves data. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context of 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both required parameters ('id' and 'code'). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters interact or their significance in retrieving hierarchy. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('parent, children, siblings of a section'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_section' or 'list_codes', which might also retrieve section-related data, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'get_section' or 'search_code', leaving the agent without context for selection in a multi-tool environment.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches but doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of sections, full text), how results are structured, or any behavioral traits. For a search tool with two parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide effective 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('query' as search terms and 'code' as optional code name). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only implies keyword-based searching without providing additional context like search syntax or examples.
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 as searching building code sections by keywords, which includes a specific verb ('search') and resource ('building code sections'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_section' (retrieves specific sections) and 'list_codes' (lists code names), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_applicable_code' which might also involve searching or filtering.
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 like 'get_applicable_code' or 'verify_section'. It mentions searching by keywords but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other search or retrieval methods available in the sibling tools.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool connects a PDF for text extraction, implying a setup or configuration action, but doesn't describe what happens after connection (e.g., whether it triggers immediate extraction, stores the path for later use, or requires authentication). It also doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or side effects.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Connect your PDF for text extraction (BYOD)'. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant information. The parenthetical 'BYOD' adds context without verbosity.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and involves a mutation-like action (connecting/uploading a PDF), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, extraction ID), error cases, or how it integrates with sibling tools for code management. The 'BYOD' hint is vague and doesn't compensate for these 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 both parameters (code and path). The description adds marginal value by implying 'code' might be a name for the PDF connection and 'path' is the file location, but doesn't clarify format requirements (e.g., local vs. remote paths) or relationships between parameters 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Connect your PDF for text extraction' specifies the action (connect) and resource (PDF). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on PDF setup rather than code retrieval or verification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'BYOD' means in this context, leaving some ambiguity.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a PDF file ready), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like list_codes or search_code. The 'BYOD' hint implies user-provided content but lacks explicit usage 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention whether the list is paginated, sorted, cached, or if there are rate limits or authentication requirements for accessing building codes.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about return format (e.g., list structure, code identifiers) and behavioral details. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't fully compensate for missing annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no filtering or options are available, aligning with the schema.
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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available Canadian building codes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from siblings like 'search_code' or 'get_hierarchy', but the scope is well-defined.
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 versus alternatives like 'search_code' (for filtered searches) or 'get_hierarchy' (for structured relationships). The description implies a comprehensive listing but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions.
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 full burden. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output returns, error handling, or any rate limits. The description is functional but lacks 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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and scope. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful.
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%, with the parameter 'location' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying acceptable input types ('city, province, or territory'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('which building codes apply'), and specifies the scope ('Canadian location'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_codes' or 'search_code', which might have overlapping functionality.
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 context by specifying 'Canadian location' and acceptable input types ('city, province, or territory'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_codes' or 'search_code'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 tool verifies existence and retrieves a citation, but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the section doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only or mutating operation. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and a brief usage hint. There is no wasted language, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly efficient.
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 (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and a usage hint, but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it provides a minimal viable explanation, resulting in an average score.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('id' and 'code'). The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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: 'Verify if a section exists and get its formal citation.' It specifies the verb ('verify') and resource ('section'), and mentions a key outcome ('formal citation'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_section' or 'search_code', which might have overlapping functionality, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'use this to prevent hallucination,' suggesting it should be used to validate section existence before referencing it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_section' or 'search_code,' nor does it outline any exclusions or prerequisites, resulting in a moderate score.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![Canada_building_code_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DavidCho1999/Canada_building_code_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DavidCho1999/Canada_building_code_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Canada_building_code_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DavidCho1999/Canada_building_code_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DavidCho1999/Canada_building_code_mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/DavidCho1999/Canada_building_code_mcp'

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