Skip to main content
Glama
Hochfrequenz

TransformerBee.MCP

by Hochfrequenz
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools serve opposite directions (BO4E to EDIFACT and vice versa), so there is no ambiguity. An agent can select the correct one based on the desired conversion direction.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow the exact same naming pattern: 'convert_<source>_to_<target>', which is clear and consistent.

    Tool Count5/5

    Two tools are perfectly appropriate for a focused bidirectional converter. The scope is narrow and complete, with no need for additional tools.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool set covers the full conversion cycle: both directions are implemented, so there are no gaps for this domain.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • 4 of 4 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 42 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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 alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'convert', omitting any side effects, idempotency, error handling, authentication needs, or other critical behaviors. Minimal transparency.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the verb and resource. While efficient, it could include more useful context 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?

    Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the conversion process, BO4E context, or how to handle the version parameter. The tool is incomplete for effective agent 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 description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. The edifact_format_version parameter has an enum with no explanation of how to choose the version, and edifact has no description at all.

    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 (convert), input (EDIFACT message), and output (BO4E equivalent). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool convert_bo4e_to_edifact by specifying the direction of conversion.

    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 vs. the sibling, no prerequisites, context, or exceptions mentioned. The description only states what it does without any usage conditions.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion action without mentioning any side effects, error conditions, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. Given the tool name, it's likely non-destructive, but this is not explicitly stated.

    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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and object, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's 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?

    Given the presence of an output schema and a sibling tool, the description provides the basic purpose. However, it lacks details about conversion behavior, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., network access). With no annotations, more context would be beneficial for complete understanding.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 50%, meaning half of the parameters lack descriptions in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters or clarify their usage.

    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 specific verb 'Convert' and the resources 'BO4E transaktion' to 'EDIFACT equivalent'. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'convert_edifact_to_bo4e', which performs the reverse conversion.

    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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool implies that this is for BO4E-to-EDIFACT conversion, but no guidance on prerequisites, edge cases, or when not to use is provided. Usage is only implied.

    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

TransformerBee.mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

TransformerBee.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/Hochfrequenz/TransformerBee.mcp'

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