ulu-voi-mcp

by NautilusOSS

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources (protocols, apps, assets, names) with different query strategies. Minor overlap exists between get_protocol and get_protocol_summary, and between get_protocol_contracts and get_contract_role, but descriptions clarify their different intents.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_protocols, identify_asset, search_assets, resolve_name). Slight inconsistency in that several verbs are used (get, identify, search, resolve, reverse_resolve) but within each verb group the pattern is uniform.
Tool Count5/5
11 tools is well-scoped for a read-only ecosystem registry. Each tool serves a distinct query need without redundancy or bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core read operations for protocols, contracts, applications, assets, and enVoi names. Minor gaps exist such as no direct 'get all assets' or 'get contract details by ID' beyond role lookup, but the domain is well served overall.
Average 3.8/5 across 11 of 11 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the high-level listing behavior, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication, output format, or any edge cases. This is minimal transparency for an unannotated 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential purpose with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning.
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 simple with only one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and result breadth sufficiently for straightforward listing, though it could benefit from clarifying whether 'description' refers to the protocol's description text or the tool's own output field.
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% (the 'type' parameter is well-described with examples). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, but the baseline for high coverage applies. It does correctly imply the filter is optional via 'List all'.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all known Voi ecosystem protocols') and outcome ('with type and description'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_protocol' by emphasizing 'all', though it does not explicitly name the singular alternative.
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 phrase 'List all' implies usage when a complete inventory of protocols is needed, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_protocol_summary or get_protocol_contracts, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'search' implies a read-only operation, the description does not state this explicitly nor describe the return format, pagination, or any side effects. Minimal 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 sentence with an immediate verb and no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema and no return behavior described, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how filters combine, what data is returned, or whether pagination exists. For a search tool with four optional filters, this is 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, including symbol, category, protocol, and verified. The description merely echoes three of these, adding no new semantics beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with a clear resource 'known Voi assets' and names three filter dimensions (symbol, category, protocol). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like identify_asset, which likely performs direct asset lookups.
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 (search assets by these filters) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like identify_asset or search_names. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls at implied usage rather than explicit guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get detailed information' without disclosing what 'detailed' includes, whether any permissions are needed, or any side effects. As a read-only operation, it is presumably safe, but the description does not explicitly state that or provide any further context beyond the intended action.
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 sentence with no filler words, fully front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately compact for a simple tool.
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 that this is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks specifics about what 'detailed information' includes. It does not describe the return structure or any limitations, which would be useful for the agent. The absence of an output schema increases the need for clarity on the response, but the description remains minimally viable.
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 fully documents the only parameter protocolId with an example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the notion that it is an ID, which is slightly redundant with the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the 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 'get' with a specific resource 'protocol' and the modifier 'by ID' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_protocols (plural list) and get_protocol_summary (summary). It clearly states the tool returns detailed information for one specific protocol.
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 you have a specific protocol ID and need detailed info, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives like get_protocols for listing or get_protocol_summary for summaries. The usage context is only implied via the phrase 'specific Voi ecosystem protocol by ID'.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states a read-only listing operation, but offers no additional behavioral context such as authentication, pagination, or what 'known' means. It is functional but minimal.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core function.
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 simple one-parameter interface and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but does not explain return structure or the nature of 'application contracts'. Slightly more context could improve completeness, but it is not severely deficient.
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 protocolId parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('known application contracts') scoped to a Voi protocol. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_protocols (list protocols) and get_protocol_summary (summary of a single protocol).
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 description: when you need to list contracts for a specific protocol. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools, nor any exclusions or alternative mentions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'Get' and provides a hint of the output ('role and purpose'), but it does not describe error handling, return structure, or any access limitations. This is adequate for a simple getter but not richly transparent.
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 communicates the tool's purpose and includes examples. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding.
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 simple (one required parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately conveys its purpose and scope. It could mention relation to sibling tools or potential error cases, but for a straightforward getter, the information is sufficient 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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter (appId) with a description ('Application ID on Voi'). The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage, the 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('role and purpose of a specific contract') and provides concrete examples (liquidity-pool, bridge, registry). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like identify_application, which focuses on identification rather than role labeling.
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 this tool (when you need to know a contract's role), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude cases. It could reference identify_application for generic identification, but the intended use case is understandable from the examples.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the output is human-readable and includes purpose, contracts, and assets, adding value beyond the tool name. However, it does not specify the return format (plain text, JSON, markdown), any access permissions, or whether contracts/assets are comprehensive or filtered.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns and for what. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it could add a bit more detail on the exact nature of the summary.
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 100%: the sole parameter protocolId has a clear description with examples. The tool description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, 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 the tool's purpose: getting a human-readable summary of a Voi protocol with specific content (purpose, contracts, assets). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'summary' aspect distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_protocol or get_protocol_contracts.
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 the tool (when a summary is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like get_protocol or get_protocol_contracts. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns specific fields and that the description is 'if known', implying optionality. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the app does not exist, or any error behavior. This is partial transparency but leaves gaps.
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, front-loaded sentence that packs the core purpose, the resource, and the expected return fields. No unnecessary words or repetition; every element 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 simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it lists the key return fields. It could optionally note the lack of an output schema or clarify the meaning of 'protocol' and 'role', but given the simplicity, this is sufficient for most agents.
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 100%: the single parameter appId has a description 'Application ID on Voi'. The tool description reiterates the same concept without adding additional format constraints, examples, or nuances, so the description does not add much beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'Identify' with a clear resource 'Voi application' and states the exact output fields (protocol, role, type, description). It distinguishes from sibling tools like identify_asset (which handles assets) and get_contract_role (which focuses on role specifically).
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 you have an application ID and need its basic metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_protocol or get_contract_role, nor does it mention any exclusions or cases where another tool would be more appropriate.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned fields, which is useful context, but it omits error behavior (e.g., what happens if the asset is not found) and any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, so the transparency is adequate but not thorough.
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 and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids redundancies with the schema. This is an ideal level of conciseness.
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 simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description must communicate return values. It lists the expected fields, which is essential. It lacks explicit handling of not-found cases, but for a straightforward lookup tool with clear scope, the description is largely 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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for assetId ('Asset or ARC-200 contract ID on Voi'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'by ID', which is also present in the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline score 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 clearly states the specific operation: 'Identify a Voi asset by ID' and lists the return fields (name, symbol, type, protocol, category). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_assets and identify_application, 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you have an asset ID and need identifying details. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions, but the sibling names and the specific ID-based lookup make the intended usage clear. A more explicit note about not using it for search or application identification would improve it.
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a read-only 'static' search, which implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly state safety, auth requirements, or return behavior. The term 'search' provides some transparency, but it lacks explicit disclosure of operation side effects or limitations.
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 action and resource, with a clear conditional for alternatives. No wasted 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?
For a simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it defines the input intent and distinguishes from live search. However, it does not mention what the search returns (e.g., matched names) or behavior like case sensitivity or result ordering, which is mild but not critical given the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'pattern' and 'limit' have descriptions). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema; 'substring match' is already in the schema. Thus the 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 clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('the static envoi name registry'), with a specific method ('by pattern'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing 'static' and differentiating from live search via UluCoreMCP's envoi tools.
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 to use UluCoreMCP's envoi tools for live search, providing an alternative. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over sibling tools like resolve_name or search_assets, though 'by pattern' and 'static' imply usage for offline, pattern-based lookups.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose useful context: the lookups come from a static registry and return address plus metadata. However, it does not mention error behavior for unknown names, whether the operation is read-only, or any edge-case limitations.
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 core action, and contains no empty filler. The first sentence states purpose; the second provides a crucial alternative, so 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, single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the key points: what it resolves, where from, and the return type (address + metadata). It lacks edge-case handling and metadata structure, but is otherwise adequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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?
The input schema already fully describes the 'name' parameter with an example, and the description repeats the same example without adding extra format constraints, case sensitivity, or name-validation rules. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3 and the description adds no additional 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 ('Resolve') with a clear resource (enVoi name) and outcome (address and metadata from the static registry). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating static vs. live resolution and by the direction of resolution (name→address, versus reverse_resolve_address).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use the tool (for static registry lookups) and provides an explicit alternative for live resolution ('use UluCoreMCP's envoi tools'). This gives the agent actionable guidance on tool selection.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It adds useful context by noting this is a static registry (not live) and limited to well-known names, but it does not disclose error behavior, empty results, or return format.
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 core function, and includes an alternative in the second sentence. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.
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?
Given it is a simple single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the scope (static registry) and offers an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state that the return is a list of names, so a small gap remains.
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 documents the single 'address' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, and the baseline for high coverage is 3.
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 it looks up well-known envoi names for a given Voi address from a static registry, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_name by making the reverse direction (address to names) explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides an alternative: 'For live resolution, use UluCoreMCP's envoi tools.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and directs to a more appropriate option, exceeding basic expectations.
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:

[![UluVoiMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NautilusOSS/UluVoiMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NautilusOSS/UluVoiMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![UluVoiMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NautilusOSS/UluVoiMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NautilusOSS/UluVoiMCP)

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/NautilusOSS/UluVoiMCP'

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