OurGroceries 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 clear, distinct purpose: listing lists, getting items, adding, completing, removing, and moving items. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these actions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_grocery_lists, add_item, complete_item). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for grocery list management. Each tool addresses a distinct operation, and the count is neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers item-level operations (add, get, complete, remove, move) but lacks list-level create/delete operations and any way to update item details like quantity or note after creation. These are notable gaps for a grocery list management server.
Average 3.8/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation (add) and optional fields, but doesn't describe side effects, error behavior, idempotency, or what happens if the list doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with empty annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 front-loads the action ('Immediately add an item'). Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition of schema information. It's appropriately sized 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?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values don't need to be explained. However, the description lacks behavioral context such as duplicate handling, list existence requirements, or error behavior. With empty annotations and sparse schema, this is barely adequate for a low-complexity mutation tool.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions quantity and note as optional, which aligns with the schema defaults, but it doesn't explain list_name or item semantics beyond their obvious names. The required parameters are not described further, providing only partial compensation.
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 clearly states the action ('add an item to a grocery list') with a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the action verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_item, remove_item, and move_item. Overall, it's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 this tool is used when adding an item to a grocery list, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_items or remove_item). It also doesn't mention prerequisites like whether the list must already exist. This is implied usage without clear exclusions.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the key default behavior (confirm defaults to false, so it previews unless confirmed) and that it marks an item complete. However, it omits details about matching semantics, list-scoping, side effects on related data, or potential errors. This is 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?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and the preview/confirm decision. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.
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 three parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves key semantics unexplained (especially list_name and what 'matching' means). While an output schema exists, the tool lacks annotations and usage guidance, resulting in an incomplete picture. The description covers the action but not the operational context.
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%, yet the description adds no explicit explanations for item, list_name, or confirm. It only implies confirm via 'with confirmation' and the item via 'matching grocery item'. The list_name parameter remains completely unexplained, and the matching mechanism is vague. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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+resource ('mark a matching grocery item as complete') and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like add_item, remove_item, and move_item. It also highlights the preview/confirmation dual behavior, making the tool's core 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 implicitly establishes when to use it: to complete an item rather than add, remove, or move it. It also provides a workflow hint ('Preview or, with confirmation, mark'), which guides the agent to preview first unless confirm=true. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation can be previewed or, with confirmation, permanently removes the item, flagging the destructive nature and the confirmation gate. This adds meaningful context beyond the empty annotations, though it omits edge-case behaviors like no-match handling.
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 action and includes both the preview and confirmation aspects. Every word contributes meaning with no fluff, making it appropriately concise.
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 is simple, and the description covers the core purpose and key safety behavior. However, it lacks guidance on usage relative to sibling tools and does not explicitly state that 'confirm' must be set to true for actual removal, which is a critical invocation detail. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description remains minimally sufficient.
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%, so the description must compensate. It addresses the 'confirm' parameter by explaining its role ('with confirmation'), adding semantic value. However, it does not elaborate on 'list_name' or 'item' beyond what the schema already implies, leaving some parameter behavior implicit.
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 ('remove') with a clear resource ('grocery item') and adds a qualifier ('matching') to indicate selection criteria. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_item, complete_item, and move_item by explicitly stating the removal action and its destructive nature.
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 through the 'preview or permanently remove' phrasing, which hints that setting the 'confirm' parameter to true triggers the actual removal. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., complete_item for marking done) or provide exclusions or prerequisites.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects. It does add context about the configured account, which is useful, but lacks details on errors, pagination, or sorting.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and subject, making it easy to parse quickly.
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, zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what the tool does and notes the account context. It could be more complete by hinting at the relationship with sibling tools (e.g., 'use get_items to retrieve items within a list'), but this is a minor gap.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since the schema already covers all (none). The description adds value by clarifying the scope of the list operation.
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 clear resource 'grocery lists' and scope 'in the configured OurGroceries account'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_items and add_item, which operate on individual items rather than lists.
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 (e.g., to see available lists before operating on items) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of sibling tools or prerequisites beyond 'configured account'.
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 tool can either preview the move or execute it with confirmation. Since annotations are empty, this disclosure is especially valuable. It does not elaborate on side effects, but the preview/confirm distinction is clearly stated.
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 delivers the core functionality without unnecessary detail. It earns every word.
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 output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description omits details about the confirmation flow (e.g., that confirm defaults to false) and does not compensate for the lack of annotations or parameter descriptions. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The schema property names (source_list, destination_list, item, confirm) are self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent to infer semantics from names alone.
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 'move' with a clear resource ('item between grocery lists'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_item, remove_item, and complete_item. The phrase 'Preview or, with confirmation, move' also communicates the tool's dual mode, adding clarity.
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 context is clear: the tool moves items between grocery lists. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., using remove_item and add_item) or exclusions, but the intent is unambiguous for a user familiar with grocery list operations.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key behavioral trait of case-insensitive exact matching, which is essential context. The description does not mention error cases (e.g., list not found), but for a simple read operation this is a minor omission.
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 immediately states the action and its scope. There is no redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the purpose.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description explains how that parameter is used. An output schema exists to define the return shape, so the description does not need to elaborate on return values. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 schema provides no description for the only parameter (list_name), and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds valuable meaning by clarifying that the name must be case-insensitive and exact, fully covering the parameter's 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 that the tool returns items from a grocery list and specifies the selection criterion (case-insensitive exact name). It is distinct from sibling tools that add, complete, remove, or move items, and from list_grocery_lists which lists the lists themselves.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the description implies that it should be used when you need the items of a specific list, and the case-insensitive exact name requirement provides clear input 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:

[![our-groceries-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/OriginalByteMe/our-groceries-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/OriginalByteMe/our-groceries-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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