Skip to main content
Glama
PA-LuffyYu

SMCPHUB Server

by PA-LuffyYu
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'get_tool_set' retrieves details for a specific tool set by ID, while 'get_tool_sets' lists all tool sets. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on whether it needs a single item or a collection.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern: 'get_tool_set' and 'get_tool_sets'. The naming is predictable and uses the same verb ('get') with singular and plural nouns to indicate the scope, ensuring clarity and uniformity.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a tool management domain. A typical tool management system would require more operations, such as creating, updating, or deleting tool sets, to be considered well-scoped. This limited set may hinder agent workflows that need full lifecycle management.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for tool management. It only provides read operations (get details and list), missing essential CRUD functions like create, update, or delete tool sets. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform comprehensive tool management tasks.

  • Average 2.7/5 across 2 of 2 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Include all tools sets' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is concise with one sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded clarity, as the purpose is vague. While brief, it doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient value beyond the tool name.

    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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of tool sets with details), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to be useful.

    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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is assigned as the tool has no parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose2/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Include all tools sets, every tool set has multiple tools' is vague and tautological. It restates the name 'get_tool_sets' without clearly specifying the action (e.g., 'list' or 'retrieve') or differentiating from the sibling tool 'get_tool_set'. The phrase 'every tool set has multiple tools' describes a property rather than the tool's function.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_tool_set'. The description implies it returns all tool sets, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit alternatives or usage scenarios, the agent lacks clear direction.

    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 states it 'gets' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detail' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

    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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with additional context. The structure is clear but minimal.

    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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tool set detail' includes, potential return values, or error cases. For a tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more context about the expected behavior and results.

    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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'tool_set_id' documented as an integer. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying the parameter is used to identify a specific tool set. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 ('Get') and resource ('tool set detail'), specifying it retrieves details for a specific tool set ID. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_tool_sets' by focusing on a single item rather than a list, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The purpose is specific 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 Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'get_tool_sets' or explain that this is for single-item retrieval while the sibling is for listing multiple items. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or usage scenarios.

    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

smcphub-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

smcphub-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/PA-LuffyYu/smcphub-server'

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