wow-api-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 has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: comparing APIs, fetching docs, reading source, searching, listing flavors/systems. No ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., get_api, search_source, list_flavors). No deviations.
Tool Count5/5
9 tools is well within the ideal range for this domain, covering all necessary operations without excess.
Completeness5/5
The tool set thoroughly covers the WoW API exploration domain: documentation, source code, cross-flavor comparison, and searches. No obvious gaps.
Average 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 10 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual behavior (reading files and listing directories) and mentions line numbers. However, it does not detail output format, error handling, or restrictions. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 sentence that front-loads the main action. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly expanded to cover missing parameter details without losing conciseness.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context. It mentions file reading and directory listing but lacks details on output (e.g., content with line numbers vs. file names) and error conditions. It is incomplete for a tool with four parameters.
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 coverage is 50%; the description adds meaning to the 'path' parameter with an example, but does not describe 'flavor', 'startLine', or 'endLine' beyond the schema constraints. For the undocumented parameters, the description offers no additional 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 clearly states the tool reads files (or lists directories) from Blizzard's UI source, with line numbers. The verb 'Read/list' and resource 'Blizzard UI source file' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like search_source or get_wiki_page.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_source or list_flavors. It only states what the tool does, without context on when it is appropriate or 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.
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 that the tool searches and returns page titles, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination handling (beyond the limit parameter).
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 purpose, and every word contributes. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 the simple input schema (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and links to get_wiki_page. However, it lacks explanation of the limit parameter, pagination behavior, and potential error cases, leaving minor gaps.
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 50%, with query having a description and example in the description ('e.g. "TOC format"'), which adds value. The limit parameter lacks description in both schema and description, though schema provides default and bounds. The description partially compensates for the gap but does not fully cover limit 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 clearly states it searches warcraft.wiki.gg and lists the content areas (addon API, UI widgets, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling search tools (search_api, search_source) by specifying 'wiki' and mentions that it returns page titles to use with get_wiki_page.
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 that after searching, one should use get_wiki_page, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over other search tools like search_api or search_source. No 'when not to use' or alternatives are discussed.
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 burden. It discloses fuzzy search and tokenization behavior, but does not describe return format, pagination, or whether results are ordered. It implies read-only operation, but lacks depth.
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 plus examples, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy.
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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain result structure. It only states 'Searches names, systems, and documentation' without detailing what the response contains (e.g., list of matches, metadata). Adequate but incomplete.
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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds tokenization info and example queries beyond schema, but the schema already explains most parameters well. The added value is moderate.
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 performs 'Fuzzy full-text search over API functions, events, and tables for a flavor.' It specifies the resource categories and provides example queries, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_api or search_source.
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 example queries and implies usage for searching API-related items. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives like get_api for retrieving a single known function.
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 provided. The description implies a read-only comparison (no mutation mentioned), but does not explicitly confirm safety, output format, or error behavior. It lists the four flavors, adding some transparency beyond default behavior.
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 defines the action, second clarifies usefulness. Front-loaded and efficient with 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?
Given one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and key detail (four flavors). It does not describe output format, but is sufficient for basic understanding.
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 baseline 3 applies. The description does not add additional meaning to the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema provides (qualified or bare).
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 compares existence and signature across four specific flavors, using a specific verb ('compare') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_api (single API) and search_api.
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 says it is useful for checking existence and signature differences across flavors, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but context with siblings implies differentiation.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns (signature, arguments, fields, flavor availability) and the acceptable input patterns. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but the read-only nature is implicit. Given the domain, this is sufficiently 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?
The description is three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and then elaborating on input specifics. There is no redundancy, and every sentence adds useful information. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 purpose (retrieving full API documentation) and the absence of an output schema, the description omits details about the output format or structure (e.g., JSON vs text) and error behavior. While the input semantics are well-covered, the output expectations are only vaguely described. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.
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 description adds significant value beyond the schema for the 'name' parameter, providing concrete examples (qualified, bare, event literals) and stating case-insensitivity. The schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have descriptions, but the description enhances understanding of acceptable input formats.
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 retrieves full documentation for a function, event, or table by name, including signature, typed arguments/returns/payload/fields, and cross-flavor availability. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff_api, get_source_file, or search_api.
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 provides guidance on input formats (qualified names, bare names, event literals) and case-insensitivity, which aids correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_source_file or search_api, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.
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 a key behavioral trait: the first search per flavor downloads a ~200 MB source checkout and may take a minute. This is critical for an agent to manage latency expectations. However, it does not mention caching behavior or any authentication/rate limits, though none are required per 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 two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds a critical behavioral note. 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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return format. It does not mention what the results look like (e.g., file paths, line numbers, snippets). The tool has 5 parameters and moderate complexity, so some guidance on output is expected for completeness.
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 description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the regex flavor (POSIX ERE) and the download behavior related to the flavor parameter. With 60% schema coverage, the description compensates for some missing parameter details, but it could elaborate more on pathGlob, ignoreCase, and maxResults.
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 performs regex search over Blizzard's UI source code, specifying the regex engine (POSIX ERE) and backend (git grep). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_api or get_wiki_page by targeting source code and positioning it as the best way to learn UI patterns.
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 learning UI patterns but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any when-not-to-use scenarios. While the purpose is clear, guidance on selection among siblings is absent.
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?
Without annotations, description adds caching behavior ('cached ~24h') and that output is markdown. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., page not found), rate limits, or authentication needs. Cache detail is helpful but incomplete for full transparency.
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 sentence states purpose and behavior, 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers purpose, cache behavior, and example inputs. Lacks details on error handling or output format beyond markdown, but sufficient for a simple fetch tool with two parameters.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by listing example valid titles ('TOC format', 'API C_Timer.After'), which helps the agent understand the title parameter beyond its schema description. No additional semantics for maxChars.
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 the tool fetches a Warcraft wiki page as markdown, with specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'page as markdown'. Provides concrete examples of useful pages, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_wiki which is for searching.
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 explicit examples of when to use ('Useful pages: ...'), implying the tool is for fetching known page titles. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but examples guide usage effectively.
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 convey behavioral traits. It declares the tool lists data but does not state whether it requires authentication, is read-only, or has rate limits. For a simple read operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.
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 that efficiently conveys the purpose and output details. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.
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 the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and the fields returned. However, without an output schema, the structure is not fully specified, leaving some ambiguity about the exact format.
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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info but is not required to; it clarifies the output, which is sufficient.
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: listing available WoW client flavors. It specifies the exact data returned (game build, interface version, data source commit, API counts), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_systems that likely list different entities.
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?
Although no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, the zero-parameter nature of the tool implies immediate usability. The description implicitly guides the agent to call it to retrieve the list of flavors, and the sibling tools are distinct enough to avoid confusion.
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitive filtering and flavor context, but does not mention default flavor behavior, pagination, or return format. Adequate 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?
Two sentences, directly to the point, front-loaded with the main action and key modifiers. No redundant information.
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 the simple listing operation, schema covers parameters well, and no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and primary options.
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 covers 100% of parameters. The description adds value by noting case-insensitivity for the filter, which is not in the schema. It also reiterates the flavor context, though schema already details enum and default.
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 'List', the resource 'API systems (namespaces)', and the context 'for a flavor'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_api or search_api by specifying the listing operation and optional filtering.
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 (listing systems for a flavor) and mentions optional filtering. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use or comparisons with alternative sibling tools.
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:

[![wow_api_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Nighthawk42/wow_api_mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Nighthawk42/wow_api_mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![wow_api_mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Nighthawk42/wow_api_mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Nighthawk42/wow_api_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/Nighthawk42/wow_api_mcp'

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