jungle-grid-mcp-server

Official

by Jungle-Grid

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions(1)Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.9
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation (submit, cancel, estimate, get status, get logs, list, get artifact, list artifacts) with no overlap. The separation between job management and artifact management is clear.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., cancel_job, get_artifact, list_jobs). The naming is predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server provides a focused but complete set for managing Jungle Grid jobs. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat or undersupply.
Completeness4/5
Covers the core job lifecycle (submit, get, list, cancel, estimate, logs, artifacts). Missing an update/retry tool for modifying job parameters, but the core workflow is well-supported.
Average 3.6/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 7 of 14 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 11, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the user-scoping constraint, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (despite the 'cursor' parameter), potential rate limits, or the fact that logs may be truncated. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
A single, perfectly scoped sentence that conveys the core action and resource. No extraneous information. Ideal conciseness.
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 tool has three parameters (one required) and an output schema exists, the description should cover parameter semantics and usage context. It fails on parameter explanation and provides no usage guidelines. The output schema likely covers return structure, but the description's gaps make the tool incomplete for an agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. Only 'jobId' is implicitly clear from the resource name. The optional parameters 'limit' and 'cursor' are not mentioned, leaving their semantics entirely unspecified. This is a significant gap that hampers correct invocation.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'execution logs for a specific Jungle Grid job'. It adds a key constraint ('belonging to the authenticated user') that helps distinguish from potential admin-only tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_job' or 'get_artifact', preventing a perfect score.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_jobs' or 'get_job'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
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?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context: starting infrastructure and incurring charges, which goes beyond the 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 focused sentences with no redundancy. Every word adds value.
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 and 9 parameters, the description provides minimal context. It lacks parameter guidance, error handling, or return value details, making it insufficient for a complex submission tool.
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 has 0% description coverage for 9 parameters. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning or usage, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.
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 ('Submit') and the resource ('Jungle Grid workload for execution'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like cancel_job or get_job.
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 hints at when to use (for submission) and warns about potential charges and infrastructure startup, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the distinction that this provides download information rather than artifact content, but it reveals little else about 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?
A single, direct sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.
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 read-only getter with an output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose. It falls short only in not explicitly guiding the agent toward when to prefer list_artifacts, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only loosely maps 'job' and 'specific artifact' to jobId and artifactId, but adds no format, constraints, or additional meaning for either parameter.
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 states a specific action ('Retrieve download information') and a specific resource ('a specific output artifact from a Jungle Grid job'). It clearly differs from siblings like list_artifacts and get_job.
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 when to use it: when download information for a particular artifact is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_artifacts or mention any exclusions.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'belonging to the authenticated user' (auth constraint) and specifies 'status and execution details' as return content. No contradiction, but marginal additional value.
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?
One sentence with clear verb-object structure, no filler, directly conveys essential information.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are documented externally. Description covers purpose and auth constraint. Annotations provide safety profile. Complete for a simple read operation.
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 0%, but the single parameter jobId is self-explanatory given its name and the tool's purpose. The description does not add extra detail about jobId format or constraints, but baseline 3 is appropriate for a simple, clear parameter.
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 specifies the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'specific Jungle Grid job', distinguishing it from siblings like list_jobs (list all) and cancel_job (cancel). It also adds scope 'belonging to the authenticated user'.
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 for retrieving a specific job's status/details, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., when to use get_job vs get_job_logs or list_jobs). No when-not-to-use conditions.
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?
Annotations already declare the tool readOnly and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information ('authenticated user's jobs') and implies recency ordering, but it does not go into pagination or response behavior. No contradiction with 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 short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the usage guidance second. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema 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?
The description conveys the tool's purpose, user scope, optional filtering, and its place in the job workflow. With an output schema available, return structure does not need to be spelled out. It only lacks explicit pagination semantics and accepted status values, which are conventional gaps rather than deal-breakers.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only addresses 'status' as a filter and leaves 'limit' and 'cursor' entirely unexplained, with no status value details. This is inadequate for a tool with three undocumented optional parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clearly bounded resource ('the authenticated user's Jungle Grid jobs'), and an optional filter ('by status'). It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_job, which targets a single job, and list_artifacts/list_job_inputs, which target different resources.
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 explicitly guides when to use it: 'Use this to find recent jobs before checking status, logs, or artifacts.' This gives an agent a clear workflow trigger. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contextual cue is strong enough.
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?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes further by stating the concrete behavioral effects: stopping active execution and preventing further outputs. This adds context not captured by the annotations and is consistent with them.
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, the action is front-loaded, and every word adds meaning. No unnecessary detail or redundancy.
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?
For a simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema, the core purpose and behavior are covered. However, the meaning of the reason parameter is missing, and there is no guidance on edge cases like cancelling an already-completed job. This leaves a moderate gap for an AI agent.
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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain either parameter. jobId is only implied by 'existing job,' and the optional reason parameter is entirely unexplained. Agents must infer parameter meaning without support.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel an existing Jungle Grid job,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_job, get_job, and list_jobs. It also adds the functional effect of stopping active execution and preventing further outputs, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 clear usage context: it applies to an existing job and may affect active execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but no sibling tool offers cancellation, so the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not reiterate safety. It adds value by specifying what the estimate covers (routing, capacity, cost). No contradictions with annotations. However, it omits details like rate limits or state effects, but these are less critical for a read-only estimate.
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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to process. Every word contributes to understanding.
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 8 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose but lacks parameter guidance. The complexity is moderate, and while the output schema reduces the need to explain return values, the missing parameter semantics leave the description incomplete for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 13% (only model_size described). The tool description does not elaborate on how parameters like workload, routing_mode, image, command, etc., affect the estimate. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful parameter context, leaving parameters ambiguous.
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 ('Estimate'), the resource ('Jungle Grid workload'), and the specific aspects estimated ('routing, capacity source, expected cost'). It also distinguishes itself from submission tools by noting 'without submitting it', making the purpose very 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 implies when to use this tool (before submission) versus the sibling 'submit_job'. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases like checking existing jobs or provide alternative contexts. While clear for its primary use case, additional guidance on when not to use it would improve this dimension.
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds job-scoped output artifact context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or empty-result 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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 read-only list tool with one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be more complete by pointing to get_artifact for retrieving a single artifact, but that is optional rather than essential.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps jobId to 'a specific Jungle Grid job,' which provides the core semantic, but it does not give format details, examples, or how to obtain the job ID.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List output artifacts associated with a specific Jungle Grid job.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_job_inputs (inputs) and get_artifact (single artifact).
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 phrase 'associated with a specific Jungle Grid job' provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need output artifacts for a known job. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 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

jungle-grid-mcp-server MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![jungle-grid-mcp-server MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jungle-Grid/mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jungle-Grid/mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![jungle-grid-mcp-server MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jungle-Grid/mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Jungle-Grid/mcp-server)