Skip to main content
Glama
Derek-Wong213

bluex-mcp

by Derek-Wong213
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a unique and non-overlapping purpose: health check for system readiness, web search for general web queries, and X search for Twitter-specific content. There is no ambiguity in their intended use.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent pattern with the 'bluex_' prefix followed by a descriptive verb-noun pair (health_check, web_search, x_search). The naming is uniform and predictable, aiding agent selection.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is lean but covers its core functionality adequately. The count is on the lower end of the ideal range but not egregiously small, as each tool serves a distinct and necessary role.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers health verification and two main search domains (web and X), which seems sufficient for its stated purpose. Minor gaps like additional search refinement or account management are absent but not critical for basic operation.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions account requirement (logged-in Grok) and mode behavior (deep adds timeline, quotes, etc.). However, it does not cover rate limits, data retention, or potential side effects. Adequate but not rich.

    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?

    Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and key behavior without fluff. Front-loaded with the main action and essential context.

    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?

    No output schema exists, and the description gives a high-level outline of returns (summary, source items, citations) but lacks detail on structure. Parameter details are covered by schema. Adequate for a search tool but leaves some gaps in return format.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mode parameter's additional features (timeline, quotes, perspectives, sentiment, verification) beyond the schema enum descriptions. For other parameters, schema descriptions are sufficient.

    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 searches live X/Twitter posts using a Grok account and lists return components (summary, source items, citations). It implicitly differentiates from siblings 'bluex_health_check' and 'bluex_web_search' by focusing on X/Twitter, but does not 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 Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no explicit when-not scenarios. The description only mentions basic vs deep mode effects but provides no decision criteria for choosing between them.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided. Description mentions authentication requirement ('logged-in Grok account') and output type (summary, source items, citations), but does not disclose rate limits, read-only nature, or other behavioral traits.

    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?

    Two concise sentences: first states core function, second explains mode option. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with essential information.

    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?

    Tool has 6 parameters (1 required) with full schema coverage. Description mentions output components but no structure details. No output schema. Adequate for a straightforward search tool, but could mention defaults (e.g., maxResults) or edge cases.

    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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for the mode parameter ('deep for timeline...') but does not significantly enhance understanding of other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

    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?

    Title 'Search the live web' and description clearly state the tool's function: searching the live web using a logged-in Grok account. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., bluex_x_search likely searches X/Twitter, bluex_health_check is unrelated).

    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?

    Description explains when to set mode='deep' for richer results, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. No mention of preferring sibling tools for specific tasks.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Lists what it checks but omits behavioral details like read-only nature or side effects. Adequate basic 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?

    Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant words. Efficient and to the point.

    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?

    Simple tool with no parameters or output schema. Description covers usage context but lacks detail on output format or results structure.

    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?

    No parameters, schema coverage 100%. Description adds meaning by explaining the specific checks performed, beyond schema's empty property list.

    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 it verifies the grok CLI installation, model, HOME, and login status. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools as a diagnostic utility.

    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?

    Explicitly says 'Run this first if searches fail', providing clear when-to-use guidance. No exclusions mentioned but sufficient for context.

    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

bluex-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

bluex-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/Derek-Wong213/bluex-mcp'

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