Skip to main content
Glama
Gentleman-Programming

DataImpulse MCP Proxy

by Gentleman-Programming
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
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 completely distinct purposes: one fetches a page through the proxy, the other reports the proxy's exit IP. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'fetch_page' and 'check_exit_ip'. This makes the API predictable and easy to learn.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels slightly thin for a typical MCP server, but the scope is narrow and focused on basic proxy operations. The count is borderline but not excessive.

    Completeness4/5

    The server covers the essential proxy workflow: fetching a page and verifying the proxy IP. Minor gaps exist, such as no session management or request customization, but the core purpose is adequately served.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 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

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the proxy but does not explain response format, redirect handling, error behavior, or authentication requirements. The clarity that it fetches 'public' pages is minimal and does not set expectations for the agent.

    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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and proxy context, making it efficient. However, it could be expanded with behavioral details without sacrificing conciseness.

    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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool description is insufficiently complete. It does not provide enough context for an AI to understand return values, parameter effects, or how it differs from 'check_exit_ip' in practical scenarios.

    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 input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameter meaning or usage. It fails to clarify the purpose of 'raw', 'city', 'country', or 'session', leaving the agent without any semantic guidance beyond variable names.

    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 fetches a public HTTP(S) page through a DataImpulse residential proxy, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and a well-defined resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'check_exit_ip' by focusing on page retrieval rather than IP inspection.

    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 the sibling 'check_exit_ip' or any alternatives. It lacks contextual cues such as 'use this when you need to retrieve web content' or exclusions like 'not for authenticated pages'.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Return the public IP' without mentioning whether the tool makes an outbound request, what the response format is, how the optional parameters affect behavior, or any error conditions. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects, safety, and failure modes.

    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, concise sentence that immediately states the core function. There is no redundant fluff, and the key information (what it returns and under what context) is front-loaded.

    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 the tool has 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It omits parameter roles, usage context, response structure, and behavioral details. For a tool that likely makes a network request, this is severely incomplete and leaves the agent guessing.

    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%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the 'country' or 'session' parameters at all, their purpose, or how they influence the result. The parameter names are mildly suggestive but no real semantics are provided beyond the schema patterns.

    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: returning the public IP assigned by the current DataImpulse proxy targeting. The verb 'Return' is specific, the resource is clear (the exit IP), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tool fetch_page, which presumably fetches web content.

    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 when to use the tool (to check the current proxy exit IP), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The context 'current DataImpulse proxy targeting' suggests verification for proxy setup, but this is only implied, 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

dataimpulse-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

dataimpulse-mcp 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/Gentleman-Programming/dataimpulse-mcp'

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