tessera-mcp

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 and action: tickets, customers, invoices, and trial management. No two tools overlap in purpose; daily_summary aggregates but does not duplicate list_open_tickets.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_open_tickets, get_customer, update_ticket_status). The outlier is daily_summary, which uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, creating a minor inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a support and billing domain. Each tool covers a distinct function without bloat or redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers ticket status updates, customer lookups, invoice search, refunds, and trial extensions. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to list closed tickets or update customer details, but these are not essential to the core workflow.
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 6 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses that this is a safe read operation. The description adds some behavioral context through use cases but does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or result limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. 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?
The tool is a relatively simple search operation with three optional parameters, all described in the schema, and a readOnly annotation. The description covers purpose and use cases. However, it does not mention return type or result limits, which would make it fully complete. For a simple tool, it is slightly above average.
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 each parameter (status, minAmount, customerId) having a clear description. The tool description only refers to 'optional filters' generically, adding no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 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 opens with 'Search invoices with optional filters,' which clearly states the specific verb and resource. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_open_tickets and get_customer, which target different entities or actions.
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 concrete use cases: 'spotting duplicate charges, overdue balances, or a customer's billing history.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.
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 annotations are sparse (all false), so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds crucial information: the tool is dry-run by default and only actually changes data when confirm:true is passed. It also discloses the status restriction. This adds value beyond the annotations and does not contradict 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?
The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence packs the critical constraints and safety behavior. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, precondition, and dry-run default. A minor gap is not describing what happens if the status is not trial, but 'only works for' is sufficient. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
Every parameter in the schema has a thorough description, including the confirm safety gate. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Extend a trial customer's trial end date by a number of days.' It adds a clear constraint ('Only works for customers whose status is 'trial'') that differentiates it from sibling tools like get_customer or update_ticket_status. This is a strong, unambiguous purpose statement.
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 only applies to trial-status customers, and it implies a safe workflow by explaining the dry-run default. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the precondition and safety gate offer sufficient guidance. A score of 4 reflects clear context without explicit sibling comparisons.
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, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the state filter ('open'), the sort order ('worst priority first'), and the optional cap. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but for a simple list-with-options tool, this is sufficient additional disclosure.
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 core purpose ('List support tickets currently in the open state') and tucks optional behaviors at the end. 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 tool with two optional parameters, a readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' (list open tickets), the sort order, and the optional filters. The schema fills in parameter details. It doesn't describe return fields, but the 'List' verb makes the array return type obvious, and no further behavior is needed for effective use.
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%, and both parameters (limit, priority) have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description only paraphrases the filter/cap options and adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full parameter meaning.
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 'List' with a clearly defined resource 'support tickets' and explicitly scopes to the 'open' state, plus states a sort order ('worst priority first'). This distinguishes it from siblings like update_ticket_status (which mutates) and get_customer (which fetches a single customer).
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 conveys when to use the tool: to list open support tickets, with optional priority filtering and limit. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the sibling tool names make the read-only vs mutation distinction obvious. The context is clear with no misleading exclusions.
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 value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that the tool aggregates a customer's profile with invoice and ticket summaries. This clarifies the scope and return content without contradicting the read-only nature.
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, front-loaded with the key action and outcome, and contains no superfluous information. Every word adds value.
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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (profile plus invoice/ticket summaries) and when to use it. The simplicity and clear annotations make this complete without needing more detail.
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 already provides full coverage (100%) with a detailed description of idOrEmail including examples. The description's mention of 'by id or email' aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what is already structured.
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 looks up a single customer by id or email and returns their profile along with invoices and tickets summaries. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or search across multiple records.
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 says 'Use this to investigate a specific account,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the focus on a single customer implies broader list/search tools are for different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate destructive) by disclosing the dry-run default, preview behavior, and the confirm safety gate. It also mentions the failure condition. 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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the safety behavior. 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?
Covers the core behavior, failure condition, dry-run preview, and confirm flag. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the return value after a confirmed execution, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.
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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including the safety semantics of confirm. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Refund a paid invoice.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_ticket_status and extend_trial. It also adds a key precondition ('Fails if the invoice is not in paid status'), further clarifying its 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?
Provides clear context: only for paid invoices, dry-run by default, and requires confirm:true to execute. It doesn't explicitly enumerate alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the usage context is sufficient.
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 the description adds valuable context by enumerating exactly what data the snapshot covers. It avoids contradicting the read-only nature and provides a precise scope of information returned.
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 purpose and then lists key contents. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
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 zero-argument, read-only tool without an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose and the data it provides. The level of detail is appropriate for an AI agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.
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?
With zero parameters and schema coverage at 100%, the description's statement 'Takes no arguments' reinforces the schema. No parameter explanation is needed, and the baseline of 4 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 provides a start-of-day snapshot with specific components (open tickets by priority, overdue invoice totals, trials expiring within 7 days). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_open_tickets and search_invoices by aggregating multiple data sources into a summary.
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 'start-of-day operations snapshot' provides clear context for when to use this tool. It implies use as a daily overview rather than for detailed list views, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses the dry-run default and the preview return, which is a critical behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It also correctly indicates mutation consistent with readOnlyHint=false. This goes above and beyond what annotations provide.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the key dry-run behavior. Every word earns its place with no waste.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description plus rich schema and annotations fully cover what the agent needs. The dry-run default is the key contextual nuance and is clearly stated. No output schema exists, but the description indicates a preview return.
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%, and the schema already documents each parameter and the confirm safety gate in detail. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 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 clearly states the verb 'Change' and the resource 'ticket's status', listing the allowed values (open, pending, solved). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_open_tickets or issue_refund, which serve different purposes.
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 gives clear context on how to use the tool: it changes ticket status and includes a dry-run by default with confirm:true to actually execute. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling list indicates no overlap, so the guidance is sufficient.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tessera-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NDilanka/tessera-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NDilanka/tessera-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/NDilanka/tessera-mcp'

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