Skip to main content
Glama
JaredOnAnIsland

seed-oil-tracker-mcp

by JaredOnAnIsland
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: single chain lookup, ranking list, and name search. No overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_chain, get_rankings, search_chains).

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is well-scoped for a focused domain of tracking seed oils in chains, providing lookup, rankings, and search without redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    Core operations are covered: individual lookup, ranked comparisons, and search. A potential minor gap is lack of a tool to list all chains, but search with partial name covers most use cases.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 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

  • 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.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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state read-only or destructive behavior. However, 'Ranked list' implies a read operation. The description lacks details on what happens if no data is available or if parameters are invalid.

    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 sentence of 17 words, highly efficient. It is front-loaded with the title and immediately conveys the key functionality. No redundant information.

    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?

    For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential logic: ranking by seed oil with order choice. The 'limit' parameter is documented in the schema (default 15), so omission in description is acceptable. No output schema exists, but the return type (list of chains) is inferable.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the 'order' parameter: 'order=best (cleanest first) or worst.' This provides semantic meaning beyond the schema's enum values.

    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?

    Description clearly states it provides a ranked list of chains by average seed oil per menu item, with order parameter for best/worst. The title 'Cleanest or worst chains, ranked' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_chain' (specific chain) and 'search_chains' (search functionality).

    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?

    Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, the context of sibling tools implies usage for rankings, and the description is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use cases.

    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 discloses that the tool returns matches with grades, but lacks details on limitations, edge cases (e.g., no matches), or behavior like pagination.

    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 with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and result.

    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?

    For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context (scope of 500+ chains, result type). Minor gap: no output structure details, but not critical for a basic search.

    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 a clear parameter description. The tool description adds 'by (partial) name' which reinforces but does not extend the schema's semantics, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

    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 explicitly states the action (search), resource (US chains by partial name), and result (matches with grades), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_chain and get_rankings.

    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 implies use for partial name matching but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusions. The context from sibling names suggests distinct purposes.

    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, the description carries full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching and US-only scope. However, it does not mention error behavior for unknown chains, authentication needs, or whether the data is static, leaving gaps for a tool with no safety annotations.

    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 waste. Purpose is front-loaded, and fuzzy matching note is appended efficiently. Every word adds value.

    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?

    Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (grade, oil, best/worst items). It specifies US-only scope, making the tool's behavior complete for a single-parameter lookup.

    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?

    The sole parameter 'name' has 100% schema coverage (description 'Restaurant chain name'). The description adds significant value by explaining fuzzy matching behavior, which is beyond the schema.

    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 'look up' and the specific resource 'one US restaurant chain', listing the exact data returned (grade, oil, items). It distinguishes from siblings by implying this is for detailed info on a single chain, while get_rankings and search_chains serve different purposes.

    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 provides context on fuzzy matching and implies use for specific chain details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_chains for finding chains or get_rankings for rankings.

    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

seed-oil-tracker-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

seed-oil-tracker-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/JaredOnAnIsland/seed-oil-tracker-mcp'

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