Skip to main content
Glama
John-Eke11

PriceScout

by John-Eke11
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools have distinct roles: one collects and stores scraped content, the other retrieves information by identifier. Some potential confusion exists because 'extract' could imply scraping, but the descriptions clarify the separation.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names use lowercase snake_case with a clear verb-first pattern (extract_scraped_info, scrape_websites), making them consistent and descriptive.

    Tool Count3/5

    Only two tools is minimal for a service, but they cover a focused scrape-and-query workflow. It is slightly below the typical well-scoped range.

    Completeness4/5

    The workflow is functional: scrape_websites returns provider names and extract_scraped_info retrieves details. List/delete/update operations are missing but not essential for the apparent basic price-scout purpose.

  • Average 2.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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

  • Behavior1/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, limitations, or persistence. It only mentions that content is 'stored,' but does not elaborate on any I/O implications, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate 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.

    Conciseness4/5

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

    The description is concise and to the point, using a single sentence to convey the primary action and then listing parameters without unnecessary verbosity. It is easily scannable and does not waste words, though it could be slightly richer without losing brevity.

    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 complexity (nested objects, multiple parameters, and an output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the semantics of the returned list of provider names, potential failure cases, or how the output relates to the input. The presence of a sibling tool also suggests a broader workflow that is not addressed, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding the tool's place in a larger process.

    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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It restates that 'websites' is a dictionary of provider_name to URL, but does not explain the purpose of provider_name, the valid values for 'formats' (beyond examples), or the fallback behavior when 'api_key' is None. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should have compensated but does not.

    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 (scrape multiple websites) and the resource (websites), and mentions the use of Firecrawl and content storage. It is specific enough to understand the tool's primary function, though it could be clearer about how it differs from the sibling tool 'extract_scraped_info'.

    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 the sibling tool 'extract_scraped_info'. It does not mention that this tool is for raw scraping while the sibling is for extracting structured information, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without explicit instructions.

    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. It only says 'extract' and that it returns a JSON string, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the identifier is not found, or any rate limits or error conditions. Minimal disclosure of behavior beyond the basic action.

    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 very short and to the point, with the main purpose front-loaded. No redundant phrasing or filler. It is concise without being under-specified.

    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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks context about the relationship with scrape_websites, any prerequisites, or potential failure modes. The output schema covers the return format, but the description does not tell the agent enough about when or why to use this tool.

    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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that 'identifier' can be a provider name, full URL, or domain. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare 'Identifier' label, though it could be more specific about accepted formats.

    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?

    States a clear verb (extract) and resource (scraped website), and the sibling scrape_websites is clearly different (scraping vs extracting). It does not specify what 'information' includes, but the purpose is unambiguous.

    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 versus the sibling scrape_websites. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the website must have been scraped first) or any conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

    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

PriceScout MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

PriceScout MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

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/John-Eke11/mcp-research-agent'

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