Skip to main content
Glama
Gitmaxd

Unofficial dubco-mcp-server

by Gitmaxd
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a specific CRUD operation on short links: create, delete, and update. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these actions, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the intended operation.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_link, delete_link, update_link) with uniform snake_case styling. This predictability enhances readability and reduces cognitive load for agents when scanning the toolset.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a link management domain, as it lacks a 'get' or 'list' tool to retrieve existing links, which is a common and necessary operation. While the tools present are well-defined, the count is borderline low for practical use.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset has significant gaps for a dub.co link management server. It covers create, update, and delete operations but omits retrieval tools (e.g., get_link, list_links), leaving agents unable to query existing links. This incompleteness will likely cause agent failures in workflows requiring read operations.

  • Average 2.9/5 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

  • 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 states the tool creates a short link and involves user interaction for domain selection, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate keys, or the format of the response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

    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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the user interaction note. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

    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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or response format, and lacks usage guidelines. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond the schema, or usage examples. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 action ('Create a new short link') and the target resource ('on dub.co'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation rather than deletion or updating, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools. The mention of 'asking the user which domain to use' adds specificity about user interaction.

    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 like update_link or delete_link. It mentions asking about the domain, which implies a user interaction context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance.

    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 states the tool deletes a link, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permission requirements, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

    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 tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address important contextual details like what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, error messages), side effects, or how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'linkId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the link to delete'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing details, but the schema adequately covers the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a short link on dub.co'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_link' or 'update_link', which would require mentioning it's for removal rather than creation or modification, so it falls short of a perfect score.

    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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_link' for modifying links or 'create_link' for adding new ones. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing link ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

    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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

    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?

    For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the update returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of updating a resource with multiple optional fields, more context is needed for completeness.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

    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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing short link on dub.co'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_link' or 'delete_link' beyond the verb itself, which prevents a perfect score.

    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 like 'create_link' or 'delete_link'. It mentions updating an 'existing' link, which implies a prerequisite but doesn't specify how to determine if a link exists or when updates are appropriate over deletion/recreation.

    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

dubco-mcp-server-npm MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

dubco-mcp-server-npm 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/Gitmaxd/dubco-mcp-server-npm'

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