Charlie Work

by Falcon305

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scanning for toil, explaining a finding, recording clearance, reporting the ledger, summarizing budget, tracking trends, and triaging priorities. No overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'charlie_verb' pattern with clear action words: scan_toil, explain, did_it, ledger, summary, trend, triage. The naming is predictable and informative.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the core workflow of toil management without excess. The count is well-scoped for the domain, providing essential functions without unnecessary duplication.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers discovery, explanation, resolution recording, and reporting. Minor gaps might include a tool to manually add toil items or update details, but the surface is largely complete for typical toil management.
Average 3.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
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
- Last stable release on July 19, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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?
Annotations already indicate write behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world effects. The description adds the context of recording a snapshot, but does not detail side effects, required permissions, or what happens to existing data. It meets a basic level of transparency given annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks structured details. It could benefit from a brief parameter explanation or usage note without becoming verbose.
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?
The tool has 2 parameters and an output schema, but the description omits details about the snapshot mechanism, the meaning of 'since last time', and the output format. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the 'repo' or 'online' parameters. Despite being few parameters, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess their roles.
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 states the tool records a toil snapshot and reports budget movement. It uses specific verbs and clearly identifies the action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like charlie_did_it or charlie_summary, which could have overlapping purposes.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest alternative tools for similar tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds only the basic purpose. It doesn't disclose ordering details, result stability, or side effects. With openWorldHint, the agent might need to know results can change externally, but this isn't mentioned.
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 redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on what constitutes 'highest-priority', how the action plan is structured, or how parameters (repo, online) affect results. More context is needed for effective use.
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 0%, and the description only hints at 'top_n' by name. It does not explain 'repo' or 'online' parameters. The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and default values.
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 returns the top-N highest-priority toil items as an action plan. It uses specific verbs ('Return') and resources ('toil items', 'action plan'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like charlie_scan_toil or charlie_summary.
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 its siblings (e.g., charlie_scan_toil, charlie_summary). The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred or should be avoided.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds context about the output metrics but does not disclose potential side effects or limitations (e.g., whether online parameter affects behavior). With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 long, front-loading the main purpose and listing output components efficiently. No extraneous information. Front-loading: immediately starts with 'Report the repo's toil budget'.
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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description should explain input usage and prerequisites. It misses guidance on how parameters affect the output. For instance, 'repo' defaults to '.' and 'online' may trigger checks, but this is not mentioned.
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 0%, yet the description does not explain the 'repo' and 'online' parameters. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, such as default values or when each parameter is useful. This is a significant gap.
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 what the tool does: reports the repo's toil budget with specific metrics (remediation minutes, debt ratio, grade, counts). The reference to Google SRE adds context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like charlie_scan_toil by focusing on summary metrics.
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 getting a toil budget overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when a high-level summary vs. detailed scan is needed). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds limited new behavioral context. It does disclose that the output includes evidence and a fix, but does not elaborate on side effects, authentication needs, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose. It is concise with no redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing evidence and fix explicitly).
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate for the core function but lacks explanation for all parameters. It does not describe the output in detail (relying on output schema) and does not cover the optional parameters, leaving some completeness gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that finding_id is a 'toil id', but does not clarify the meaning or usage of 'repo' and 'online' parameters. The description adds value only for one of three 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 tool's action ('Explain why a specific finding is real debt'), the resource (a finding by toil id), and what the output includes (evidence and a fix). It distinguishes this from siblings like charlie_scan_toil (which scans) and charlie_summary (which provides summary).
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 use when you need an explanation for a specific finding, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., charlie_triage) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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?
The description discloses that the tool returns a prioritized queue and lists the kinds of toil it detects. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying what is scanned. No contradictions are present.
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 two sentences. The first sentence effectively lists toil types, and the second provides a usage hint. While the list is long, it is acceptable for a scanning tool. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient overall.
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 8 parameters with zero schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It only addresses mode and indirectly implies repo (scan a repository). The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the parameter semantics are severely lacking, making the tool hard to use without further documentation.
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 0%, and the description only explains the 'mode' parameter (mode='plain'). The other seven parameters (repo, kinds, limit, offset, online, github_repo, include_github) are not described. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter descriptions.
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 scans a repository for toil, listing numerous specific types (flaky tests, TODOs, etc.). The name and title are descriptive, and it is distinct from sibling tools which likely perform different operations (e.g., charlie_did_it, charlie_trend).
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 mentions setting mode='plain' for a flavor-free report, providing some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to choose this tool over others. The context of scanning for toil is clear, but no alternatives or exclusions are given.
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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context by stating what the ledger reports (who cleared toil, Champion, open amount). No contradictions with annotations.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise, though slightly dense. Every part adds value.
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?
Given the simple tool (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers the main outputs but omits parameter details (e.g., what 'mode' values do) and usage context. Adequate but has gaps.
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 0%. The description does not explain the 'mode' or 'repo' parameters. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning beyond the 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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Report the credit ledger for standup or retro', listing what is included (who cleared toil, Champion, open amount). It distinguishes from sibling tools (charlie_summary, etc.) by its focus on ledger reporting.
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 mentions usage contexts ('for standup or retro'), implying when to use. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with sibling tools like charlie_summary or charlie_trend.
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?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, consistent with a write operation. The description adds that the tool persists to a local ledger and rescans to resolve the title, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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, each serving a purpose: core action, side effect, and secondary effect. No redundant or unnecessary wording. Front-loaded with the main purpose.
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?
The description covers the core action and side effects but lacks detail on prerequisites (e.g., existence of a prior scan), error handling, and parameter details for mode/note/repo. An output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values, but parameter semantics remain insufficient.
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 description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions toil_id and implies who, but does not describe 'mode', 'note', or 'repo'—three of five parameters. The meaning of these parameters remains opaque, failing the high burden.
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 (record clearance), the resource (toil identified by toil_id), and the side effect (rescans). It distinguishes from sibling tools like charlie_scan_toil (scan) and charlie_ledger (ledger inspection).
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 usage context (recording clearance of toil) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings. It is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.
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:

[![charlie-work-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Falcon305/charlie-work-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Falcon305/charlie-work-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![charlie-work-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Falcon305/charlie-work-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Falcon305/charlie-work-mcp)

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/Falcon305/charlie-work-mcp'

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