Skip to main content
Glama
ESkuratov

MCP Content Publisher

by ESkuratov
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: publishing a post, getting metrics for a post, and getting channel statistics. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (publish_post, get_metrics, get_channel_stats), making it easy to predict functionality.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is minimal but functionally complete for basic publishing and stats retrieval. Slightly limited but appropriate for its stated purpose.

    Completeness2/5

    The server provides publish and read operations but lacks update/delete tools for posts, and no tool to list or manage scheduled posts. Significant lifecycle gaps exist.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 12 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 full burden. It states the output fields but does not disclose behavior such as real-time vs cached data, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

    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 concise with a clear heading, Args and Returns sections. It avoids fluff and is front-loaded with the main action. However, it mixes languages (Russian and English) which may reduce clarity for some agents.

    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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, inputs, and output structure. It lacks details on error cases, data freshness, and pagination (if any), but is minimally adequate.

    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 0%, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: platform is clarified with allowed values (telegram, youtube, instagram) and channel as name/ID. This adds value beyond the bare schema, though it does not provide format examples or constraints.

    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: 'Получить общую статистику канала' (get general channel statistics). It identifies the resource (channel) and the verb (get stats). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_metrics, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

    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 an Args section listing required parameters but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_metrics or publish_post. There is no context about prerequisites, frequency caps, or suitability 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 the description must disclose behaviors. It reveals the return structure (PostMetrics fields) but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or rate limits.

    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?

    One sentence plus structured Args/Returns. All essentials are front-loaded with no extraneous words.

    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?

    Covers inputs and output structure. For a 2-param tool with no output schema, it is nearly complete, though it could mention that the post must be published.

    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 0%, so description adds value by explaining platform with examples (telegram | youtube | instagram) and post_id context, going beyond the raw schema.

    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 'Получить метрики опубликованного поста' (Get metrics of a published post), uses specific parameters (platform, post_id), and contrasts with siblings get_channel_stats (channel-level) and publish_post (publishing).

    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 explains the parameters and implies when to use (for a specific post), but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

    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?

    Despite no annotations, the description discloses publishing behavior, optional scheduling, media URLs, and return fields (post_id, status, url, error). It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but covers the core behavior sufficiently.

    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 structured with a one-line purpose, then a bullet-style Args and Returns section. It is concise and easy to parse, though the Russian language might limit international agents.

    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 no output schema, the description includes the return structure. All 5 parameters are explained. It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides full parameter semantics: platform options (telegram | youtube | instagram), text, channel, media_urls optional, schedule_at optional with ISO-8601 format. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

    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 'Опубликовать пост на указанной платформе' (Publish a post on the specified platform), specifying the verb and resource. It lists the allowed platforms and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_metrics, get_channel_stats) which are read-only.

    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 does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling tool names and context imply usage for publishing vs. reading metrics, so it is adequate but not explicit.

    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

mcp-content-publisher MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-content-publisher 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/ESkuratov/mcp-content-publisher'

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