Simulatte MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different stages of the research workflow: setting up pools, running studies/interviews, getting results and insights, and estimating costs. No two tools have overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools consistently use the 'simulatte_' prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_pool, get_results), making names predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose of synthetic research. Each tool addresses a necessary step without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the core lifecycle—create pools, run studies, get results, ask insights, estimate costs. A minor gap is the lack of deletion or cancellation tools, but the essential workflows are complete.
Average 3.8/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 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?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It hints at asynchronous behavior by mentioning 'poll', but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or how inputs are validated. The description is insufficient 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 two sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and includes a concrete follow-up action (poll with simulatte_get_results). There is no extraneous information; every sentence is purposeful.
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 absence of an output schema and the complexity of nested inputs, the description provides basic context: it returns a study_id and directs polling. However, it omits details about error handling, required permissions, cost implications, and the dependency of inputs on the chosen SKU, leaving the agent partially 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?
Schema description coverage is 75% (three of four params have schema descriptions). The description adds context for the sku param by listing example study types, but does not clarify the structure of 'inputs' beyond 'SKU-specific'. This provides marginal added value over the schema.
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 that the tool runs a Simulatte synthetic research study and returns a study_id, with examples of SKU categories. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning simulatte_get_results for polling, but does not explicitly differentiate from other related tools like simulatte_estimate_cost.
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 by noting that the returned study_id can be polled with simulatte_get_results, providing a chaining hint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or clear alternatives like simulatte_estimate_cost for cost estimation before running.
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only describes the output and does not mention any side effects, permissions, or potential issues like rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely performs a query.
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 concise with two clear sentences, front-loading the main action and output without any unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (cited answer with themes and sources). The parameter count is low and schema coverage complete, but potential error conditions or limitations are not mentioned, leaving minor gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds a helpful example for 'query' but does not significantly extend the schema's documentation, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 ('Ask a question across your entire Simulatte research history'), the method ('semantic search'), and the output ('cited answer with themes and source study references'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like simulatte_get_results.
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 provides a usage context ('Great for synthesizing findings across multiple studies') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses only that it returns interview_id and credits estimate, but lacks detail on statefulness, authentication, rate limits, or boundaries of the simulation.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks output schema, but description explains return values. Given the simulation context (no side effects, limited complexity), the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what the tool does.
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 baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema descriptions for parameters like persona_id, goal, etc.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Run a simulated depth interview with a synthetic persona.' Distinguishes from siblings like simulatte_ask_insights or simulatte_run_study by specifying depth interview behavior.
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?
Implied usage through description of surfacing motivations and objections, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to sibling tools. Alternatives like simulatte_run_study not mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists the contents of the returned JSON (verdicts, key drivers, objections, etc.), but does not mention operational aspects such as read-only nature, latency, error handling for missing or incomplete studies, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not detailed.
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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second enumerates the key data returned. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given 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, no annotations), the description covers the main use case and return format. However, it lacks a mention of the prerequisite relationship with simulatte_run_study (i.e., that the study must be run first and completed). Slight improvement would include that linkage.
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 only parameter, study_id, is described in the schema as 'Study ID returned from simulatte_run_study'. The description in the tool description repeats exactly that, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose: retrieving results for a completed Simulatte study. It specifies the verb 'Retrieve results' and the resource 'completed Simulatte study', and lists the contents of the returned JSON. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like simulatte_run_study (which starts a study) and simulatte_ask_insights (which likely provides interactive insights).
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 after study completion by saying 'for a completed Simulatte study', but it does not explicitly state the prerequisite of having run simulatte_run_study first or warn against using it on incomplete studies. No alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving some ambiguity about proper sequence.
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 full burden. It mentions creation and return of a pool_id, but omits side effects (e.g., duplication handling) and permissions. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words; front-loaded with the action and key output. Efficient and direct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the return value (pool_id) clearly, addressing the lack of output schema. It could mention error conditions or duplication behavior, but for a creation tool it is largely complete.
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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds context 'custom demographic and psychographic specification' for pool_spec, but this is redundant with schema. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'synthetic persona pool', specifying it returns a 'pool_id' for reuse, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'simulatte_list_pools' and 'simulatte_run_study'.
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 explains the return value and reuse, indicating when to use (before running studies), but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. It provides clear context without stating when not to use.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. Only lists output fields; no mention of side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. Minimal behavioral insight.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, description fully covers what the tool does and how to use its output. Complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed.
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 (list), resource (persona pools), and return fields (IDs, names, markets, sizes). It also differentiates from siblings by mentioning use of pool IDs in simulatte_run_study.
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?
Explicitly states when to use (to list pools) and provides guidance on using output in simulatte_run_study. Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not scenarios, but context is clear.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals local calculation ('no API call needed') and provides the cost formula, but does not disclose error handling or parameter validation 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?
Two sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: estimation purpose, local calculation, and formula.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains what is estimated (credits and USD) and the formula. It could mention return format, but for a simple estimation with no side effects, it is adequate.
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 already covers parameter descriptions for all three params (67% coverage). The description adds the cost formula but no new semantic information for sku or max_turns beyond schema defaults.
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 estimates credit cost and USD price for a Simulatte study before running it, distinguishing it from sibling tools like simulatte_run_study. The verb 'estimate' and resource 'cost/price' are specific.
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 indicates when to use ('before running it') and notes it requires no API call. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives to sibling tools.
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:

[![simulatte-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Iqbalahmed7/simulatte-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Iqbalahmed7/simulatte-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![simulatte-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Iqbalahmed7/simulatte-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Iqbalahmed7/simulatte-mcp-server)

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/Iqbalahmed7/simulatte-mcp-server'

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