Skip to main content
Glama
NieLubieRudej

engine

by NieLubieRudej
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: calc for arithmetic, scribe for video transcription, sysinfo for system information. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tool names are lowercase single words (calc, scribe, sysinfo), which is consistent in style. However, they don't follow a strict verb_noun pattern, and one is an abbreviation (calc) while another is a concatenation (sysinfo).

    Tool Count3/5

    Having three tools is borderline appropriate given the server name 'engine' implies a broad utility scope. The count feels thin but not extreme, and each tool seems self-contained.

    Completeness2/5

    The tools cover a calculator, a video transcriber, and system info, which are unrelated domains. There are obvious gaps if this is meant as a general-purpose engine (e.g., no file operations, no networking). The set feels incomplete for any coherent purpose.

  • Average 3.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit 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 must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'evaluates' an expression, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention safety, side effects, or limitations. For a simple calculator, this is acceptable but lacks clarity on what happens with invalid expressions.

    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, immediately stating the tool's purpose. No redundant information is present, achieving maximum conciseness.

    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's simplicity, the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, and precision. The sibling tools suggest this is one of few tools, but completeness could be improved with a note on return type.

    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 0% for the single 'expression' parameter, but the description adds meaning by specifying it is an arithmetic expression and listing operators (+, -, *, /, **, %). This compensates partially, but the parameter's type and format remain under-specified.

    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?

    Description clearly states the tool evaluates exact arithmetic expressions, listing supported operators. It distinguishes from siblings 'scribe' (likely writing) and 'sysinfo' (system info) by focusing on calculations.

    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?

    The description says 'use for any calculation' which is an implicit guideline but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. No alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent with minimal usage guidance.

    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 provided, so description carries full burden. It states basic output but does not explain the optional 'verbose' parameter's effect or any side effects. The statement 'no arguments needed' could mislead agents into thinking there are no parameters.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It earns its place without extra 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?

    For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main output but lacks explanation of the parameter and return format, making it minimally adequate.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0% for the sole parameter 'verbose'. The description says 'no arguments needed' but does not clarify the parameter's meaning or effect, offering minimal added value.

    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 explicitly states it reports OS, CPU count, and RAM, with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools calc and scribe which are for different domains.

    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 notes 'no arguments needed' which implies simplicity but does not provide explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It lacks guidance on when to choose sysinfo over siblings.

    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 present, so description must fully disclose behavior. It states arguments are passed 'straight to the scribe CLI' but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, output handling, or safety implications.

    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: first states purpose, second provides examples. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

    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?

    Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, but lacks information on return values, error behavior, or prerequisites that would fully prepare an agent to use it effectively.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds concrete usage examples (--help, --dry-run, --json) that clarify the expected format beyond the schema's generic 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?

    Clearly states verb 'Run' and resource 'scribe CLI' with purpose 'video -> transcript for AI'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (calc, sysinfo) by domain.

    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?

    Provides example arguments for typical use cases (--help and dry-run with JSON), but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclusions.

    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

engine MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

engine MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

shields.io Endpoint

engine MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

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/NieLubieRudej/engine'

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