mcp-counter-server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct: increment, reset, delete, get, list, and history each target a unique operation. However, counter_parse_and_apply can also perform increment, reset, delete, and set actions, creating some overlap with the direct tools, though it is clearly scoped as a text-parsing batch operation.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent counter_<verb> pattern, using snake_case for multi-word verbs like parse_and_apply. The naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer the tool's function from its name.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a counter management domain. Each tool serves a distinct operational need without excessive overlap or redundancy, striking a balance between completeness and simplicity.
Completeness4/5
The core counter lifecycle is well covered: create (via increment), read (get/list), update (increment/reset), and delete. However, direct decrement and set-to-arbitrary-value operations are missing, requiring agents to use counter_parse_and_apply with text, which is an awkward workaround for simple cases.
Average 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 6, 2026
- 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosure. It clearly communicates the irreversible destructive nature ('permanently delete') and the fact that historical data is included. However, it does not address error scenarios, permission requirements, or post-deletion behavior, which could be useful.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the essential behavior without any extraneous words. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is functionally complete: it names the resource, the permanence, and the historical scope. It does not describe return values or edge cases, but these are less critical for a destructive action with minimal schema 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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter counter_id with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 tool's purpose: to permanently delete a counter and all its history. The verb 'delete' is specific, the resource is a counter, and the scope (all history) is explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like counter_reset or counter_get.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as counter_reset or counter_parse_and_apply. The description implies permanent removal but does not explicitly mention exclusions or when users should choose this over a less destructive sibling.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' but does not disclose potential behavior like handling of nonexistent counters, authorization requirements, or side effects. The description is not misleading but omits edge-case 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.
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?
The tool is simple with one param and no output schema. The description adequately states what is returned (value and metadata), fulfilling the need for return-value context. It falls short of full completeness by not covering error cases, but for a basic get operation this is a minor gap.
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%, as the only parameter (counter_id) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (Get), the resource (a specific counter), and the result (current value and metadata). It distinguishes itself from siblings like counter_list (all counters) and counter_history (historical values) by specifying 'a specific counter' and 'current value'.
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 usage context is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus counter_list or counter_history, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The description is sufficient for a trivial get operation but lacks explicit guidance.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It uses 'Get' to imply a read-only operation and specifies the content of the history, but does not disclose safety guarantees, ordering, or any side effects. The description adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get') and efficiently conveys the scope. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple with complete input schema, and the description covers purpose and content. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the exact shape or ordering of returned history entries, leaving a minor gap in how an agent interprets the response.
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 already fully describes both parameters (counter_id and limit), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('operation history for a specific counter'), and lists the operations covered (increments, decrements, resets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like counter_get (current state) and counter_reset (mutation).
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 when to use the tool (when operation history is needed) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks direct guidance such as 'use counter_get for current value'.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses sequential processing, final state returns, and debug mode behavior, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error handling, what happens with invalid tags, or the mutating side effects on counters beyond 'apply operations'.
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 longer but every section earns its place: purpose, syntax forms, examples, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and well-structured. Slight redundancy in tag format enumeration but overall efficient.
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 the tool's complexity (multiple syntaxes) and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers supported formats, processing direction, debug mode, and return value. Missing error-handling details, but the core functionality is well-specified.
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 schema covers both parameters, but the description adds substantial meaning by detailing the tag syntax for the text parameter and clarifying debug output behavior beyond the schema's simple description. This elevates it above 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 states 'Parse counter tags from text and apply all operations in order' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., counter_increment, counter_reset) by targeting batch processing from text with multiple supported tag formats.
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?
Usage context is implied through the detailed tag format syntax and examples, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus the individual counter operations. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: the counter is set to 0, it continues to exist, and history is preserved. This informs the agent about the operation's non-destructive nature.
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, no redundant information, front-loaded with the action.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, though it doesn't mention error handling or return values, which are likely straightforward.
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 single parameter counter_id is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter details, which is acceptable per baseline.
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 uses a specific verb 'Reset' and resource 'counter', clearly defining the action and scope (back to 0). It distinguishes from siblings like counter_increment, counter_delete, and counter_get by specifying the unique behavior.
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 for resetting a counter while preserving its existence and history, which contrasts with counter_delete. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 discloses a key side effect: 'Creates the counter if it doesn't exist.' This is essential behavior beyond the basic increment. It also mentions decrement capability via schema description, but the main description focuses on increment and auto-creation, which is appropriate.
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 a purpose statement. No redundant wording or unnecessary details. Every sentence contributes value.
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?
This is a simple tool with no output schema. The description covers what it does, auto-creation behavior, and typical use cases. It does not describe the return value (e.g., new counter value), but that is not critical for invoking the tool correctly. Sibling tools are distinct and self-explanatory.
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%: both counter_id and amount are described in the input schema. The description adds context about auto-creation for counter_id, but does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Increment a counter'), the resource (counter), and the configurable amount ('by a specified amount, default: 1'). It distinguishes from siblings like counter_get, counter_reset, and counter_delete by specifying the increment operation.
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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to track iterations, processed items, or any counting task.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the sibling names (counter_get, counter_reset, etc.) make the distinction obvious.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists active counters with current values and metadata, indicating a read operation. However, it does not explain what 'active' means, whether results are sorted or paginated, or if there are any side effects (unlikely but unstated). This is acceptable 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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the purpose and output. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool returns: active counters with values and metadata. It could be more explicit about output structure or default ordering, but for a list operation it is sufficiently complete.
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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to add. The schema is empty with 100% coverage by default. The description correctly makes no parameter claims, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and specifies the resource ('all active counters'), including current values and metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like counter_get (single counter) and counter_reset (mutation).
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 the tool is for retrieving all active counters, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives, though the sibling names and the phrase 'all active' differentiate it from the singular get tool.
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:

[![mcp-counter-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Discordit142/mcp-counter-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Discordit142/mcp-counter-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-counter-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Discordit142/mcp-counter-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Discordit142/mcp-counter-server)

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/Discordit142/mcp-counter-server'

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