Skip to main content
Glama
EasyOnward

EasyOnward MCP Server

Official
by EasyOnward
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: country_code resolves country names to ISO codes, while check_visa checks visa requirements. There is no ambiguity or overlap.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use lowercase with underscores, but country_code (noun_noun) is not imperative like check_visa (verb_noun). The inconsistency is minor and does not hinder understanding.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels minimal. While they cover the essential workflow, the count is low for a general travel information server, bordering on insufficient.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the core loop of normalizing country names and checking visa requirements. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose, though additional tools like country listing could enhance coverage.

  • Average 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses read-only and PII-free nature, mentions official government sources, deduped links, and output types. Does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but the behavioral detail is good.

    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, no fluff, and front-loads the key purpose. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

    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 description lists all major output components (verdict, requirements, source links, deep link). With no output schema, this is adequate. Could be more complete by mentioning any limitations (e.g., coverage of visa types), but it's sufficient for the tool's 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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions. The description adds examples of valid inputs (ISO codes and country names) but largely reiterates what the schema already provides. Minimal added meaning.

    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: checking visa and entry requirements for a traveler based on passport and destination. It specifies verb 'check' and resource 'visa & entry requirements', and distinguishes from sibling 'country_code'.

    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 when to use (visa check) and explicitly states it's read-only and PII-free. It doesn't provide explicit alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tool name 'country_code' hints at differentiation.

    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 explains the transformation (to uppercase), input acceptance (name or existing code), and error behavior. For a simple lookup, this is adequate, though it could mention if it requires authentication or has 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?

    The description is two sentences, very concise, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, input flexibility, example, and error handling.

    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 100% and the description adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that the parameter can be a country name or an existing ISO-2 code, and provides an example. The schema only states 'A country name or ISO-2 code'; the description enriches understanding.

    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: resolve a country name or existing ISO code to its uppercase ISO-2 code, with an example ('Kenya' → 'KE'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'check_visa' by noting it's useful before calling that tool.

    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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('useful before calling check_visa') and what happens on error ('returns an error if the name can't be resolved'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

    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-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-server 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/EasyOnward/mcp-server'

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