Skip to main content
Glama

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v0.1.11

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Only a single tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion with other tools. The delegate tool's purpose is clearly described as handing tasks to another agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    With only one tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained. The name 'delegate' is a clear, imperative verb that matches its action.

    Tool Count3/5

    The server has exactly one tool, which is borderline and feels thin for a 'bridge' concept. While it covers the core delegation operation, a single tool is at the low end of acceptable scoping.

    Completeness3/5

    The delegate tool covers the primary task of handing work to another agent, but there are no tools to discover available agents, check statuses, or manage the bridge. This leaves notable gaps for a full agent-bridge lifecycle.

  • Average 3.7/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 47 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

  • 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 states the high-level behavior of delegation and returning output, but omits important behavioral traits such as waiting behavior, timeouts, potential side effects, or failure modes. This is insufficient for a tool that delegates to an external agent.

    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 sentences, concise and front-loaded. It conveys the primary action and a usage hint without any unnecessary words, earning a high score for structure.

    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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding but lacks details on the return value structure, error behavior, or how cwd/timeout affect execution. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a tool of this complexity.

    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 schema fully documents all parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond, which is acceptable as the baseline for full schema 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 clearly identifies the action ('Delegate a task') and the resource ('another coding agent (Claude Code or Codex)'), and states the outcome ('return its final output'). It is specific and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

    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 use ('Use this to hand work to the other agent'), indicating when the tool should be invoked. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, so it does not fully earn 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

bridge-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

bridge-mcp-server 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/Ming0429/bridge-mcp-server'

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