Skip to main content
Glama
PabloBorgesMartins

@erickwendel/ciphersuite-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v0.0.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one encrypts and one decrypts. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern: encrypt_message and decrypt_message. This is consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for the scope of a cipher suite. It is borderline, as the tools are focused but minimal.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers the basic encrypt/decrypt lifecycle, but lacks key management, algorithm selection, or other common cipher operations. For a cipher suite, this is a minimal surface.

  • Average 3.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 4 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
  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and omits critical details like error behavior on wrong key, required encryption format, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a decryption tool.

    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 with no wasted words. It is maximally concise and easy to parse.

    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?

    Despite having an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description provides no contextual guidance about the expected decrypted output, failure modes, or security considerations. A decryption tool needs more context to be used correctly, especially in an agentic setting.

    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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (encryptedMessage and encryptionKey), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra information beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

    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 action (decrypting) and resource (encrypted message), which distinguishes it from the sibling encrypt_message. However, it is very close to the tool name itself, adding little specificity beyond that.

    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 decryption but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over the encrypt_message sibling, nor does it state any prerequisites such as needing the correct key. The context is clear but not elaborated.

    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. It only states that encryption occurs, without disclosing algorithm, key requirements, reversibility, side effects, or output format. This is minimal behavioral information.

    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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It earns its place by stating the purpose, though it ends with a trailing space and lacks broader structural enhancement.

    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 and complete schema, the description is minimally adequate. An output schema exists so return values are covered elsewhere. However, no additional context about usage, security implications, or relationship to the sibling is provided.

    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 100% with descriptions for both 'message' and 'encryptionKey', so the schema already fully documents the parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

    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 states a specific verb 'Encrypts' and resource 'message', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'decrypt_message' which performs the opposite operation.

    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?

    Usage is implied by the name and description rather than explicitly stated. No mention of when to use encrypt_message vs the sibling decrypt_message, though the opposite operation makes it somewhat apparent.

    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

study-building-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

study-building-mcp 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/PabloBorgesMartins/study-building-mcp'

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