ryubing-mcp

by Leuconoe

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: session management, status, game launch, input methods, screenshot, and logs. There is no overlap, and descriptions clearly distinguish between session status and active game status.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools use the 'ryubing_' prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., press_buttons, set_sticks, launch_game, list_sessions). The only deviation is ryubing_touch, which is a single verb, but it remains clear and does not cause confusion.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for an emulator control server, covering session lifecycle, input, diagnostics, and game launching without redundancy. Each tool earns its place.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core workflow: create session, launch game, control input, take screenshots, read logs, and stop session. Missing advanced features like save states or configuration settings are minor gaps for the apparent purpose.
Average 3.9/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 22 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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'without desktop window chrome' scoping but does not disclose how the screenshot is returned (e.g., file path, base64) or any side effects. With annotations covering safety, this is acceptable 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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. 'Capture the emulator's rendered game frame without desktop window chrome' is specific and succinct, earning every word.
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?
The description defines what is captured but omits details about the return value or output format, which is critical since no output schema exists. It also lacks explicit usage guidelines. Given the simple optional parameters and strong annotations, it is minimally adequate but has a clear gap on return behavior.
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 input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (quality, sessionId), while format lacks a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific context, relying on the schema. At the high schema coverage baseline, this 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 uses the specific verb 'Capture' with the resource 'the emulator's rendered game frame' and adds the scope 'without desktop window chrome,' clearly distinguishing it from less specific screenshot tools. There are no competing siblings, so 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for capturing pure gameplay visuals ('without desktop window chrome') but does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to, or mention alternatives. Sibling tools do not include another screenshot tool, so the guidance is minimal but not misleading.
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 idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific items being checked but does not disclose response format or potential edge cases. This is adequate for a simple status tool but not rich behavioral context.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every word earns its place 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description names the two key outputs (bridge compatibility and running game). However, it does not elaborate on what 'bridge compatibility' means or the response structure, which would be helpful given no output schema. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's simplicity.
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 input schema fully describes the single optional parameter sessionId with a pattern and explanation, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 with a specific verb 'Check' and identifies exactly what it reports: bridge compatibility and the currently running game. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_game, stop_session, and take_screenshot, which perform different actions.
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 when you need to verify status or compatibility, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other tools like get_logs or list_sessions. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage context is only implicit.
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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds specificity about the list's contents, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like return format or whether authentication is needed. This matches the baseline where annotations do the heavy lifting.
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 focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without wasting 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?
This is a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently indicates what will be listed, though it does not explicitly mention the return format. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly does not attempt to describe non-existent 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the exact resources ('external default bridge and all managed Ryubing processes'), making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_status or create_session.
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 rather than alternatives such as ryubing_get_status or ryubing_stop_session. The description states only what the tool does, not the context or conditions for its use.
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, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the cursor-based incremental pagination behavior, which is not evident from schema or annotations. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradiction.
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 consists of two concise front-loaded sentences. The first clearly states the core purpose, and the second provides a crucial operational detail without any redundancy or fluff. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the key pagination concept and benefits from strong read-only annotations. However, it does not mention filtering by minimum level, default limits, or what the response structure looks like beyond implying a cursor, leaving some gaps for an agent.
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 low (25%, only sessionId has a description). The description adds meaning to the cursor parameter by explaining its role in fetching newer entries. However, limit and minimumLevel are not elaborated in the description, though their names and schema defaults provide some intrinsic semantics.
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 'Read structured emulator logs' uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('structured emulator logs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that control the emulator or manage sessions. Even though the title says 'Get logs', the description adds 'structured' and clarifies the read-only nature, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 when logs need to be retrieved, but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool. However, the cursor instruction ('Pass the returned cursor to get only newer entries on the next call') provides a clear usage tip for incremental reading, which adds some guidance beyond mere implication.
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 annotations all set to false, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the stateful nature of sticks (omitted sticks retain their previous state), which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not address idempotency or side effects, but the 'set' action is clear.
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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and a key behavioral note. No wasted words.
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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core stick-setting behavior but omits important context like player targeting and the durationMs reset mechanism, which remain only in the schema. This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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 only 29% (2 of 7 params documented). The description adds range and omission semantics for the stick coordinates, partially compensating for the low coverage. However, it does not explain the 'player' parameter or the durationMs reset behavior, though durationMs is described in 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 states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Set left and/or right analog stick coordinates.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like press_buttons and touch, which handle different input types.
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 gives a practical usage hint ('Omitted sticks keep their prior state'), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the agent must infer tool selection from the name and context.
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 are all false, offering no meaningful behavioral signal. The description adds useful context about the coordinate system (1280x720) and action types, but does not disclose whether the tool blocks until completion, requires specific permissions, or has side effects beyond the input. This leaves some ambiguity.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information (action types and coordinate system) without redundancy or extra filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It gives essential orientation but leaves questions about swipe endpoints, duration semantics, and sessionId usage. The schema fills some gaps, but the overall package is not rich.
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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that x/y are native Switch coordinates and that action can be tap, long_press, or swipe, which helps interpret the core parameters. However, it does not explicitly explain endX/endY or durationMs, relying on schema defaults and inference.
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 sends touch inputs (tap, long press, swipe) to the Switch screen using native coordinates. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like ryubing_press_buttons and ryubing_set_sticks, which handle other input types.
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 the tool is for touchscreen interactions, providing clear context for when it applies (e.g., tapping UI elements) versus other input tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of full explicit guidance.
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 a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context about what the session includes (isolated profile, bridge port, authentication token). It does not mention process lifecycle, resource usage, or that sessions should be stopped later, but the key side effect of starting a process is disclosed.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Start a new Ryubing process') and adds essential details without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key behavioral elements. It does not mention return values or explicitly tie to stop_session, but the overall context from annotations and the simple schema makes it reasonably 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?
The schema fully describes the single parameter (sessionId) with pattern and description, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra 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 states a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('Ryubing process') with distinct attributes ('isolated profile, bridge port, authentication token'), clearly differentiating it from siblings like list_sessions and stop_session. The title confirms the creation nature.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and description (creates a session before other actions), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools suggest lifecycle but the description itself lacks direct instructions.
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 are all false, indicating a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that updates apply only for the session, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects like starting or stopping the emulator, or any state changes beyond the session update.
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, front-loaded with the verb 'Launch,' and conveys the essential purpose and optional behavior with zero waste.
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 launch tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema provides sufficient context. It could have mentioned what the return value or success/failure indication looks like, but that is not strictly necessary for invocation.
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%, with all three parameters already well-described (e.g., basePath formats, sessionId format, updatePath purpose). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Launch a user-owned base game file' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions the optional update application. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like ryubing_get_status or ryubing_take_screenshot.
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 clear usage: to start a game, possibly with an update. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of launching a game is unambiguous given the sibling set. The mention of 'for this session only' also provides a usage constraint.
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?
The description discloses the key behavioral trait: buttons are pressed simultaneously and held for a specified duration before release. Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the burden, and it does so well for a simple input tool. It does not mention side effects like blocking or output, but these are not critical.
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 that front-loads the action and outcome. Every word is necessary and there is no 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?
For a simple action tool, the description covers the core behavior and timing. The schema handles parameter details. It lacks an explicit statement about return values, but no output schema exists, and the action is straightforward enough that this is not a significant gap.
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% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The description itself does not add detail about parameters beyond what the schema provides, and durationMs is left without a description. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter description.
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: pressing one or more Nintendo Switch controller buttons simultaneously and releasing after a duration. It uses a specific verb ('Press') and resource ('Switch controller buttons'), and is distinct from sibling tools like ryubing_set_sticks or ryubing_touch.
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 clearly implies the tool is for button inputs, and no exclusions are stated. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5. The context is clear: use this when you need digital button presses.
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?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that the process is stopped individually and the profile is retained by default, unless explicitly removed. This complements the destructiveHint=true annotation without contradicting it.
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 concise sentences. The first states the primary action, and the second adds a crucial caveat about profile retention. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core action and a key side effect. It lacks details about error conditions or post-stop state, but given the simplicity and annotations, this is acceptable.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It partially does by hinting at the 'removeProfile' parameter ('unless explicitly removed'), but it does not add details about 'sessionId' or clarify parameter syntax. The meaning of sessionId is obvious from the name, but the description could be more explicit.
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 with a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('one managed Ryubing process'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ryubing_create_session or ryubing_launch_game by focusing solely on termination.
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 this tool: to stop a managed session. It also implies usage for the 'removeProfile' behavior by noting the profile is retained unless explicitly removed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/Leuconoe/ryubing-mcp'

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