peoplehub

by PradellaNicolas

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: auth, session checking, week listing, activities, concepts, groups, reworks, and logging hours. The main potential confusion is between list_activities and list_conceptos since both relate to the Activities tab, but the descriptions provide enough separation.
Naming Consistency4/5
The peoplehub_ prefix is consistent and most tools follow a list_<noun> or verb_noun pattern. Minor deviations exist: peoplehub_login is verb-only and peoplehub_session is a noun, plus list_conceptos uses Spanish rather than English.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is well-scoped for a PeopleHub time-reporting integration: authentication, session verification, reference data lookups, and hour logging. Each tool has a clear role without redundancy.
Completeness3/5
The set covers authentication, reference data, week listing, and logging hours, but there is no update or delete operation for already logged time entries. That creates a notable gap for correction workflows, though the core logging flow is complete.
Average 3.6/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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 hay anotaciones y la descripción no declara efectos secundarios, autenticación requerida, paginación ni límites. Aunque 'catálogo' sugiere una operación de lectura, no se afirma explícitamente que sea no destructiva ni se aclara qué devuelve. La descripción deja casi toda la carga al agente.
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?
La descripción es breve y no desperdicia palabras, pero esa brevedad es más subespecificación que concisión efectiva. No incluye información clave como el rol de reference_date ni el comportamiento de la herramienta, por lo que la estructura es insuficiente aunque esté libre de relleno.
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?
Para una herramienta con un solo parámetro opcional, sin anotaciones y sin esquema de salida, la descripción debería explicar al menos el significado del parámetro, la relación con la semana y el tipo de actividades. Solo dice 'para el rango de semana', dejando dudas sobre el alcance exacto del catálogo y el uso correcto del parámetro.
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?
El esquema tiene un solo parámetro reference_date con un patrón pero sin descripción, y la cobertura del esquema es 0%. La descripción menciona 'rango de semana', lo que sugiere que la fecha sirve para calcular la semana, pero no explica cómo se interpreta la fecha, si el rango es la semana que contiene la fecha o un rango distinto, ni el formato esperado más allá del patrón.
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?
La descripción 'Catálogo de actividades imputables para el rango de semana' indica un recurso específico (actividades imputables) y un contexto temporal (rango de semana), lo que permite inferir que se trata de una operación de listado. Sin embargo, no diferencia explícitamente este catálogo de los hermanos list_week, list_conceptos o list_groups, aunque el término 'actividades' lo distingue razonablemente.
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 se proporciona ninguna orientación sobre cuándo usar esta herramienta frente a las alternativas. No menciona que requiere sesión previa (peoplehub_login/session), ni cuándo conviene usar list_week o list_reworks. El contexto de uso solo se infiere débilmente de 'rango de semana'.
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. The verb 'Lista' implies a read-only list operation, but there is no disclosure of access requirements, scope, output format, or whether any mutation could occur. It provides only 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 concise sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the main action. It is appropriately short for a zero-parameter list operation, though it sacrifices explanatory detail.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what a 'concepto' is and what it is associated with, but it does not. The empty parameter schema covers invocation, but the meaning and return value of the tool remain underspecified.
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. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the schema already confirms no inputs exist.
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 names the tool's action ('Lista') and resource ('conceptos asociados'), and adds context with '(pestaña Actividades)'. It is not a tautology, but it does not define what 'conceptos' are or what they are associated with, so it only partially distinguishes it from siblings like list_activities.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as list_activities, list_groups, or list_reworks. The parenthetical '(pestaña Actividades)' gives a location but not a decision rule or exclusion criteria.
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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists reworks/bugs; it does not mention return structure, pagination, session/auth requirements, error behavior, or any side effects. 'Lista' implies a read operation, but little else is disclosed.
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 one compact sentence with the core action front-loaded. The parenthetical is concise but relies on the undefined acronym 'AST', which slightly reduces clarity. There is no wasted wording.
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?
For a simple one-parameter list operation, the essential calling information is present and the schema covers the parameter fully. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned list contains beyond 'reworks/bugs', nor does it mention session prerequisites or interpret the AST jargon.
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%, so the parameter is already documented with a type, description, and example. The description adds a derivation hint ('actividad_id = first segment of the AST'), which could be useful in context but is cryptic and unexplained. Overall, it adds only marginal value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('reworks/bugs') tied to an 'actividad', so the tool's purpose is clear. It is implicitly distinct from sibling list tools because it targets reworks/bugs for an activity, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.
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 clear purpose: use this when you need reworks/bugs for a specific activity. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, exclusions, or pointers to alternative sibling tools.
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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Lista' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose whether a session is required, whether results are paginated, or what the response structure looks like.
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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless list operation.
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?
For a simple parameterless list tool, the description covers the core operation and resource. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits useful context such as what the listed groups represent, whether authentication is required, and the shape of the returned data.
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. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 states a specific action ('Lista') and a specific resource ('grupos disponibles para el usuario'). It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling list tools, which target other resources like activities, week, concepts, and reworks.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an active peoplehub session or login. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that this is a POST operation requiring confirm=true and that the API's total_horas field is expressed in minutes. However, it omits authentication needs, error behavior, and what happens on success or failure.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and endpoint. Every sentence adds information: what the tool does, the confirmation requirement, and the API unit conversion. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a 12-parameter write operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is not complete enough. It does not explain how to obtain valid activity/codigo/grupo values, whether a session is required, or what a successful submission returns. The confirm=true guard is helpful but does not fill the 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 only 42%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds a valuable semantic fact: total_horas in the API is in minutes, which clarifies how hours/minutes are sent. But it gives no guidance for codigo, grupo_id, rework_id, ticket_cau, actividad_id, or subactividad_id.
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 action ('Registra horas en PeopleHub') and the exact endpoint (POST /api/time-report). It is easily distinguished from the sibling list/login/session tools, which do not write time entries.
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 intended use is obvious from 'Registra horas' and the endpoint, and it gives a concrete execution requirement (confirm=true). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention prerequisites such as an active PeopleHub session.
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 the full behavioral burden. The read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'Lista', and there is no mention of authentication/session requirements, data scope, pagination, or side effects. It does add useful context with the Monday-to-Sunday week boundary, but safety and dependency behavior are left to inference.
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 one short, efficient sentence that conveys purpose, week boundary, and default behavior. Every phrase earns its place, and the most important operational detail appears immediately.
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 list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed, the week definition, and the default. It could be more complete by explicitly noting whether an active session is required and what the returned hour-load records look like.
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 already documents the single optional parameter's format and default value. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that reference_date selects the week containing that date and that the week runs Monday through Sunday.
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?
States a specific verb ('Lista'), a specific resource ('cargas de horas de una semana'), and scope ('lunes a domingo'). The resource is clearly distinct from sibling tools like peoplehub_list_activities, peoplehub_list_conceptos, and peoplehub_list_groups, so an agent can identify what this tool operates on without opening schemas.
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 gives clear context about the default week selection (reference_date or today), but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as peoplehub_list_activities or peoplehub_log_hours. Usage is implied by the purpose rather than clearly routed.
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that Chromium will open, an SSO login will occur, and a session file will be saved at a specific filesystem path. This is sufficient transparency for a login 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?
Two concise sentences deliver the core purpose, the mechanism, the side effect, and the recommended usage cadence. There is 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?
The definition is complete enough for a simple login tool: it explains what happens, where the session is stored, and when to run it. It could slightly improve by noting that manual user interaction in the browser is expected, but this is reasonably implied by 'iniciar sesión' with SSO.
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 only parameter, timeout_seconds, is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but given 100% schema coverage, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: it launches Chromium to sign in to PeopleHub via Microsoft SSO and stores the session locally. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list data or log hours.
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 clear usage context: run once per user or when the session expires. It does not explicitly mention or exclude alternatives like peoplehub_session, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool is a read-only check (verifica) and explicitly notes that no sensitive data is involved, which is useful safety-relevant context. It could add what happens when no session exists, but the core behavior is 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then provides endpoint-level detail. Every part is informative and there is no redundancy.
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 parameterless, low-complexity tool, the description conveys the purpose, the endpoints called, and a privacy-relevant property. The lack of output schema is a minor gap, but the tool's behavior is simple enough that an agent can successfully invoke it based on this description.
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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics missing. The description appropriately adds no parameter details because none are needed.
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 ('Verifica') and names the exact resources it consults (/api/auth/session-check and /api/auth/user). This clearly identifies the tool as a session validation utility and distinguishes it from sibling tools like peoplehub_login or the list tools.
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 condition 'si hay sesión guardada' makes the intended use context clear: check for an existing session before other operations. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but sibling names and the session-check purpose provide enough guidance.
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

peoplehub MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![peoplehub MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PradellaNicolas/cursor-peoplehub-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PradellaNicolas/cursor-peoplehub-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![peoplehub MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PradellaNicolas/cursor-peoplehub-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PradellaNicolas/cursor-peoplehub-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/PradellaNicolas/cursor-peoplehub-mcp'

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