Skip to main content
Glama
Elitespec

claude-host

by Elitespec
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
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 targets a distinct operation: deploying a new site, listing existing sites, and updating a site. There is no ambiguity or overlap between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: deploy_site, list_sites, update_site. The naming is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the server covers the core lifecycle for static site hosting (deploy, list, update), which is appropriate for the domain. A delete operation is missing but does not severely impact the count.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool surface covers deploy, list, and update, but lacks a delete operation for removing hosted sites. This is a notable gap for a hosting service, as agents may need to clean up old sites.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 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

  • 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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a live URL and requires an account for first deploy, but it does not clarify if the tool overwrites an existing deployment with the same name, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The behavioral traits are partially revealed but leave gaps.

    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 three sentences long, front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, and then provides contextual usage and account info. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

    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 (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description does not fully equip the agent. It omits parameter semantics, does not describe the return format beyond 'live URL', and does not mention error handling or idempotency. The tool's purpose is clear, but the surrounding context for execution is lacking.

    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?

    The schema has 3 parameters (name, files, industry) with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on what any of these parameters mean—e.g., what the 'name' field represents, how the 'files' object is structured (path-to-content mapping), or the purpose of 'industry'. Without this, the agent cannot confidently populate the parameters.

    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 verb 'deploy', the resource 'static website to EliteSpec hosting', and the outcome 'returns a live URL on *.elitespec.co.nz'. It distinctly sets the tool apart from its siblings list_sites and update_site, which are for listing and updating existing sites respectively.

    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 says when to use the tool: when the user has a website (HTML+CSS+JS+images) ready to go live. It also mentions ideal use cases (landing pages, small business sites, portfolios) and a prerequisite (one-time EliteSpec account). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which would be helpful.

    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?

    Discloses key behavior (only payload files overwritten), but no annotations exist. Lacks details on auth, error handling, or idempotency.

    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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.

    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?

    Covers basic functionality for a simple update tool, but missing output schema and error case info; adequate given low complexity.

    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?

    With 0% schema coverage, description does not explain parameters beyond schema; 'files' object format and 'siteId' are not elaborated.

    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?

    Description clearly states verb 'Push updated files' and resource 'EliteSpec-hosted site', and distinguishes behavior from siblings (e.g., deploy_site likely for initial deploy).

    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?

    Implies use for updating existing site files, but no explicit when-to-use/alternatives guidance. Sibling names provide context but not directly in description.

    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 carries full burden. It implies authentication is needed ('authenticated user') but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or error scenarios. Adequate for a simple read operation.

    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?

    Single sentence that is front-loaded and concise. No unnecessary words. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

    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 and simple nature, description is mostly complete. It could optionally mention what each site entry contains, but not required.

    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 exist in the schema (0 params, 100% coverage), so baseline 4 applies. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable.

    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 specifies the action 'list', the resource 'sites', and the scope 'authenticated user's hosted sites on EliteSpec'. It distinguishes from siblings 'deploy_site' and 'update_site' by using a read-only verb.

    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 (deploy_site, update_site). No explicit when-not or context for usage beyond the basic action.

    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

claude-host MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

claude-host 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/Elitespec/claude-host'

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