Skip to main content
Glama
PV-Bhat

Vibe Check MCP

by PV-Bhat
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

75%
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: vibe_check focuses on metacognitive questioning to prevent immediate errors by identifying assumptions, while vibe_learn focuses on pattern recognition to prevent recurring issues by tracking errors and solutions. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'vibe_' prefix pattern with descriptive suffixes (check and learn), making them predictable and readable. The naming style is uniform throughout the set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a server named 'Vibe Check MCP', which suggests a broader scope for metacognitive or error-prevention functionality. While the tools are well-defined, the count is borderline low for typical MCP server purposes.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover two key aspects of error prevention (immediate and recurring), but there are notable gaps such as tools for applying learned patterns, adjusting strategies based on feedback, or integrating with external systems. The surface is functional but not fully comprehensive for the inferred domain.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • 3 of 4 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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.

  • This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.

  • 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions tracking and prevention but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this is a read/write operation, data persistence, permissions needed, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters and potential data mutation.

    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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its informational content.

    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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for guiding an agent in practical use beyond a high-level purpose.

    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%, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating or enhancing the schema's information.

    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 tool's purpose as a 'pattern recognition system that tracks common errors and solutions to prevent recurring issues,' which specifies the verb (tracks) and resource (errors/solutions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'vibe_check,' leaving room for ambiguity about their distinct roles.

    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, including its sibling 'vibe_check.' It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

    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?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's cognitive effects (identifying assumptions, breaking tunnel vision, preventing errors) but lacks details on how it operates (e.g., does it generate questions, provide feedback, modify plans?), what it returns, or any constraints like rate limits or permissions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('metacognitive questioning tool') and elaborates with clear outcomes. Every word earns its place, avoiding redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

    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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it uses the parameters (e.g., 'modelOverride' for AI model selection), or behavioral details like state management with 'sessionId.' For a metacognitive tool with rich inputs, more context is needed to guide effective use.

    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 high (88%), so the schema already documents most parameters well (e.g., 'goal,' 'plan,' 'uncertainties'). The description doesn't add specific meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters like 'modelOverride' or 'sessionId' relate to the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

    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 tool's purpose as a 'metacognitive questioning tool' that 'identifies assumptions and breaks tunnel vision to prevent cascading errors.' It uses specific verbs ('identifies,' 'breaks,' 'prevent') and describes the cognitive function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'vibe_learn' beyond the general domain of 'vibe' tools.

    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 in scenarios involving assumptions, tunnel vision, or error prevention, suggesting it's for reflective or corrective moments. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'vibe_learn' or other alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the context somewhat open-ended.

    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

vibe-check-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

vibe-check-mcp-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/PV-Bhat/vibe-check-mcp-server'

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