Skip to main content
Glama
DonHz666

kscc-mcp-server

by DonHz666
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one initiates a new coding task, the other continues an existing session. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both names follow the same 'verb_noun' pattern (run_kscc_prompt, continue_kscc_session), with consistent snake_case style.

    Tool Count5/5

    Two tools is perfectly scoped for the server's stated purpose of executing and continuing kscc coding tasks.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the full lifecycle implied by the server: starting a new prompt and continuing an existing session, with no obvious missing operations.

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

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 11 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

  • 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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the internal resume/continue flag mechanics, but does not disclose side effects, budget/agent behavior, session persistence, or whether the original session is mutated (only indirectly hinted by the fork parameter in the schema). This is a significant gap for an agentic continuation tool.

    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 with no filler, front-loading the purpose and then giving a compact routing rule. Every segment earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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

    Completeness1/5

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

    Given 17 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and the existence of a sibling tool, this one-line description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error behavior, side effects, cost implications, and any comparison with run_kscc_prompt, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is only 24%, and the description only addresses sessionId and cwd—both already described in the schema. The other 15 parameters (model, effort, permissionMode, allowedTools, disallowedTools, maxBudgetUsd, etc.) receive no explanation, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

    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 states a specific action (续接/continue) and resource (kscc 会话) with a clear goal (多轮迭代/multi-round iteration). The routing clause also distinguishes this from the sibling run_kscc_prompt by making clear it resumes an existing session rather than starting a new one, even without naming the sibling.

    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 gives parameter-selection guidance: with sessionId use --resume, otherwise use cwd with --continue. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus run_kscc_prompt, such as 'use run_kscc_prompt for new sessions.' The usage context is implied by the word 续接 but not clearly stated.

    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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that execution is headless, one-time, and returns structured JSON containing a session_id. This tells the agent the operation's nature and return shape, though it does not mention side effects like file modifications or cost implications. Still, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

    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?

    A single, dense sentence that front-loads the key information: one-time, headless, coding task, structured JSON, and session_id for continuation. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

    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 complexity of 15 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is far from complete. It covers the essential return behavior but does not explain the many optional parameters, when to use them, or the operational effects (e.g., file changes, budget limits). The agent would need to infer a great deal about how to invoke this tool correctly, especially for non-trivial tasks.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is only 13%, with only prompt and cwd having descriptions. The tool has 15 parameters, and the description provides no additional meaning for any of them. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage at all; the agent is left to guess the semantics of model, effort, addDirs, mcpConfig, permissionMode, and the rest.

    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 states a specific action (one-time headless execution of kscc coding task) and a clear resource (kscc prompt). The word '一次性' (one-time) differentiates it directly from the sibling continue_kscc_session, and the mention of session_id for continuation reinforces this distinction. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from the sibling.

    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 rather than explicit. The description notes that a session_id is returned for continuation, which hints that to continue a task you would use the sibling, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over continue_kscc_session or vice versa. No exclusion or alternative condition is given.

    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

kscc-mcp-server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

kscc-mcp-server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

shields.io Endpoint

kscc-mcp-server MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

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/DonHz666/kscc-mcp'

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