trocco-mcp-tools
OfficialServer Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Both tools target distinct resources (datamart vs workflow) with no overlapping functionality, making them easily distinguishable.
Naming Consistency5/5Both tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (get_datamart, get_workflow), providing predictability.
Tool Count2/5Only two tools for a server named 'trocco-mcp-tools' is very limited; likely insufficient for a data platform's typical operations.
Completeness2/5Only read operations (get) are provided; missing create, update, delete, and other lifecycle operations, leaving significant gaps.
Average 3.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 23 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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.jsonto 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?
No annotations provided; the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. It only notes that SQL and metadata may not always be available ('when available'), which is a minor behavioral detail but insufficient for a complete transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It could benefit from a brief note on output but remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what is fetched but omits details on return format, error conditions, and integration points. A more complete description would include expected output structure and potential failures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to the parameter. It only mentions 'by datamart_definition_id', which repeats the parameter name without explaining its format, constraints, or relationship to the tool's behavior. The schema already defines it as integer with exclusiveMinimum, so the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Fetch) and resource (TROCCO datamart definition), specifying what is included (BigQuery SQL and option metadata). It distinguishes from the sibling get_workflow implicitly by focusing on datamart, but lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, no prerequisites, and no conditions for use. The sibling 'get_workflow' exists but no comparison is 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'read-only,' indicating no side effects, which is a useful behavioral hint. However, it does not disclose other traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if pipeline_definition_id is missing or invalid), authorization requirements, or idempotency. The description adds some transparency but lacks completeness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence of 15 words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word is informative. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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), the description provides the basic purpose and context. However, it omits important details such as the return format, potential errors, or prerequisites. For an AI agent to invoke it correctly, more information about what the response contains would be helpful. The description is too minimal for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description does not elaborate on the parameter pipeline_definition_id beyond mentioning it by name. The schema defines it as an integer with exclusiveMinimum 0, but the description adds no additional meaning about its purpose, format, or constraints. With such low coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Fetch a TROCCO workflow definition by pipeline_definition_id for read-only audit preparation.' It specifies the verb (Fetch), the resource (workflow definition), the identifier (pipeline_definition_id), and the context (read-only audit preparation). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_datamart, which operates on a different resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by stating 'for read-only audit preparation,' which implies when to use this tool (audit scenarios). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative uses or compare against the sibling tool get_datamart. The guidance is clear but not comprehensive enough for a score of 5.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/Growth-Management/trocco-mcp-tools'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server