Skip to main content
Glama
LKbaba

grok-mcp

by LKbaba
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v2.0.4

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one is for searching and synthesizing external information (grok_agent_search), the other for generating creative ideas (grok_brainstorm). No overlap in functionality or target use case.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent 'grok_' prefix with descriptive snake_case actions (agent_search, brainstorm). The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a general-purpose Grok AI offering. The tools serve distinct functions, but the number is at the low end of what would be considered reasonable.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers search and brainstorming but misses common AI capabilities like text generation, summarization, or question answering. For a server named 'grok-mcp', these are significant gaps that would require workarounds.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the workflow: 'automatically analyzes queries, executes searches, synthesizes information, and provides cited answers.' This is meaningful behavioral context, though it omits any caveats or limitations that might be expected for a search 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?

    Three concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then describe capabilities and ideal use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

    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 provides a solid overview for a complex tool with nested configs and no output schema. It explains the output as 'cited answers' and covers main capabilities. However, it does not address the detailed configuration options (e.g., date ranges, domain restrictions), relying on the schema for those.

    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. The description only echoes the search_type options (Web, X, mixed) and does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

    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 function: 'Intelligent search powered by Grok AI' with specific capabilities (Web, X, mixed search). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool grok_brainstorm by focusing on search and information synthesis, not ideation.

    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?

    Provides context on when to use: 'Ideal for getting latest information, researching topics, and tracking social media trends.' This gives clear usage scenarios, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or comparison to alternatives beyond the sibling's name.

    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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the name: 'Supports reading project files as context to generate project-relevant ideas.' This is the only non-obvious behavior. The description does not discuss side effects, output shape (covered by output_format param), or limitations, but for a creative generation tool, the behavior is essentially non-destructive and straightforward.

    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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, and the unique context_files capability. There is no redundancy or fluff.

    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?

    For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the overall function, suggests use cases, and highlights the context_files feature. The output_format parameter in the schema describes return formats, so the description does not need to repeat that. The rich parameter schemas and enums reduce the need for extensive prose.

    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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It reiterates that a topic is needed and that context_files provide project context, but the schema already documents these in detail. No additional semantic value is offered.

    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 function: 'Generates innovative ideas, multi-perspective analysis, and creative suggestions based on a given topic.' It uses a specific verb ('generates') and resource ('ideas'), and the name 'grok_brainstorm' combined with the sibling tool 'search' makes the distinction clear, even without explicitly naming grok_agent_search.

    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 context for when to use the tool: 'Ideal for product design, content creation, problem solving, and strategic planning.' It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention grok_agent_search, but the use cases are specific enough to guide the agent. Minor deduction for lacking an explicit 'when-not-to-use' statement.

    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

Grok-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

Grok-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/LKbaba/Grok-mcp'

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